The AODA Alliance Sends a Detailed Brief with 53 Recommendations to the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee to Make Post-Secondary Education Accessible to Students with Disabilities


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

The AODA Alliance Sends a Detailed Brief with 53 Recommendations to the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee to Make Post-Secondary Education Accessible to Students with Disabilities

November 1, 2021

            SUMMARY

Today is the final day for the public to send feedback to the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee on the measures needed to make colleges and universities in Ontario accessible for students with disabilities. The AODA Alliance has sent that Government-appointed Committee a detailed brief, set out below. It makes 53 recommendations.

Overall, our brief supports the Initial Report that the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee submitted to the Ford Government last March, and which the Government made public on June 25, 2021 for public comment. Our brief points out a few areas where we disagree with that Initial Report, and several areas where we urge the Committee to add more detail to its recommendations to the Government. We congratulate the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee on its efforts and are eager to meet with that Committee to discuss our recommendations in this brief.

We thank everyone who has shared their feedback with the AODA Alliance on this topic, including your thoughts on the draft Framework for the Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard, which the AODA Alliance created and made public on March 11, 2020. Your input makes a huge difference.

While today is set as the final deadline for giving the Standards Development Committee your feedback, we encourage you to send a short email to them, supporting the AODA Alliance’s November 1, 2021 brief which we here make public. You can write the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee at: [email protected]

Today is also the final day to send your feedback to the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on its Initial Report that recommends measures to make K-12 education in Ontario schools accessible to students with disabilities. You can write that Standards Development Committee at [email protected]

AODA Alliance Brief to the Post-Secondary Standards Development Committee on Its Initial Recommendations for the Contents of the Promised Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard

November 1, 2021

Via email to: [email protected]

 1. Introduction

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requires the Ontario Government to lead Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. The Government is required to do so by enacting and effectively enforcing accessibility standards. These are enforceable regulations. An accessibility standard is required to specifically spell out in detail the barriers that are to be removed or prevented, what specifically must be done to remove or prevent them, and the timelines required for these actions.

The Ontario Government has committed to develop an Education Accessibility Standard under the AODA. In 2017, the Ontario Government appointed two Standards Development Committees, the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee and the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee. These Committees are mandated to make recommendations on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include.

On June 25, 2021, the Ontario Government publicly posted the initial or draft report of the Post-Secondary Standards Development Committee, three and a half months after the Government received it. The public’s feedback has been invited on that Initial Report. That Initial Report sets out recommendations on what the promised Education Accessibility Standard should include in so far as Ontario colleges and universities are concerned. The public has been given up to November 1, 2021 to submit its feedback.

This brief sets out the AODA Alliance’s detailed feedback on the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee’s Initial Report. Our recommendations are listed in Appendix 2 at the end of this brief. In summary, we congratulate the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee for a strong report with very helpful recommendations. In this brief, we recommend ways to fine-tune and strengthen them. With only a few exceptions, we do not disagree with anything the Standards Development Committee recommended.

The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee’s Initial Report demonstrates over and over how Ontario desperately needs a strong and effective Education Accessibility Standard to be enacted as soon as possible. It shows that Ontario’s post-secondary education system is replete with far too many disability barriers. These barriers hurt students with disabilities and hand-cuff post-secondary educators who want them fully included in their post-secondary educational offerings.

It is especially important for the post-secondary education sector to become accessible to students with disabilities. A good post-secondary education is very important for getting a good job, or indeed getting a job at all. This is even more important for people with disabilities. People with disabilities chronically face a substantially higher unemployment rate than the public does as a whole. Barriers in the post-secondary education system can only make this situation worse. A strong and effective post-secondary Education Accessibility Standard is therefore an important measure for increasing employment opportunities for people with disabilities.

 2. Who Are We?

The AODA Alliance is a voluntary non-partisan coalition of individuals and organizations. Our mission is:

“To contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

To learn about us, visit: https://www.aodaalliance.org.

Our coalition is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee advocated for more than ten years for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. We draw our supporters from the ODA Committee’s broad, grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit: http://www.odacommittee.net.

We have been widely recognized by the Ontario Government, by all political parties in the Ontario Legislature, within the disability community, and by the media, as a key voice leading the non-partisan campaign for accessibility in Ontario. In every provincial election since 2005, parties that made election commitments on accessibility did so in letters to the AODA Alliance.

Our efforts and expertise on accessibility for people with disabilities have been recognized in MPPs’ speeches on the floor of the Ontario Legislature, and beyond. Our website and Twitter feed are widely consulted as helpful sources of information on accessibility efforts in Ontario and elsewhere. We have achieved this as an unfunded volunteer community coalition.

Among other things, we led the campaign in Ontario from 2009 to the present to get the Ontario Government to agree to develop an Education Accessibility Standard. Our efforts on the education front are documented on the AODA Alliance website’s education page.

Beyond our work at the provincial level in Ontario, over the past several years, the AODA Alliance has been active in advocating for strong and effective national accessibility legislation for Canada. Our efforts influenced the development of the Accessible Canada Act. We have been formally and informally consulted by the Federal Government and some federal opposition parties on this issue.

The AODA Alliance has spoken to or been consulted by disability organizations, individuals, and governments from various parts of Canada on disability accessibility issues. We have also been consulted outside Canada on this topic, most particularly, by parties from Israel and New Zealand.

 3. Our Big Message to the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee

Before going into details, we offer six high-level themes and over-arching recommendations for the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee, to help it finalize its report on what the Education Accessibility Standard should include regarding colleges and universities.

First, we heartily congratulate the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee on its thorough, thoughtful Initial Report. It reflects mountains of very hard work.

The AODA Alliance strongly supports everything in that Initial Report except in the specific instances where the contrary is explicitly indicated in this brief. In each case, we show how the Initial Report can be refined to address the issues we identify. To address our concerns is eminently feasible. Our recommendations fit very well with the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee’s overall approach.

Second, at several points in the Initial Report, the Standards Development Committee correctly recognizes a need for standards to be created, but subsequently recommends that their creation be delegated to others, such as the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and/or the Council of Ontario Universities (COU). In each such case, we propose that it is more appropriate for that policy, standard, or direction to be set out in the Education Accessibility Standard itself.

In those instances, we agree that a standard needs to be created. However, its creation should not be delegated to the Ministry or the COU. The Ministry has no expertise in such areas as supervision of graduate students. Moreover, the whole idea of an AODA accessibility standard is that Cabinet enacts it. It does not get and indeed cannot be sub-delegated to someone else.

As noted earlier, an AODA accessibility standard is required to set specific accessibility standards that spell out in detail which barriers are to be removed and prevented, and what must be done to remove or prevent them. In the absence of an Education Accessibility Standard in Ontario, individual students with disabilities must each resort to the duty to accommodate their disabilities under human rights laws, because recurring disability barriers too often remain in place. If the Education Accessibility Standard directs the removal and prevention of specific disability barriers in the post-secondary education system, then students with disabilities will not have to resort to asking for many individualized accommodations to get around those barriers.

To illustrate, it is commendable that the 2011 Transportation Accessibility Standard does not tell each municipal transit authority to develop a plan on what to include in buses it procures to ensure that those buses are accessible to passengers with disabilities. Instead, it properly spells out in detail what a bus must include to be accessible.

In contrast, it is inappropriate that the 2011 Employment Accessibility Standard does not spell out measures to remove and prevent many recurring workplace barriers. This is a major failing of that accessibility standard. It wrongly allows employers to leave existing barriers in place, while also allowing employers to erect new barriers. The Employment Accessibility Standard primarily attempts to encourage employers to effectively accommodate individual employees with disabilities. It does little to make workplaces accessible and barrier-free over the long term.

If the Education Accessibility Standard does not include specific and detailed barrier removal and prevention requirements in a particular area where a known recurring disability barrier exists, each college and university is left to determine what accessibility features it should include in its documents, websites, furniture, equipment, buildings, or services. This duplication of effort is wasteful and inefficient. Each college and university must re-invent the wheel. Students with disabilities at each college and university must repeatedly advocate for the mitigation and removal of the same recurring barriers. It leaves each college or university, or Colleges and the Council of Ontario Universities, to decide how much or how little each party will do. This risks accomplishing too little for students with disabilities.

Organizations want and need to know specifically what they must do to comply. Where it is proposed that each of the colleges and universities establishes a “guideline”, this is of little use. A “guideline” is not binding. In contrast, an accessibility standard is binding and enforceable.

For example, the Initial Report’s Recommendation 52 (Graduate supervision) includes:

“a) Ministry of Colleges and Universities, working with the Council of Ontario Universities, shall develop a common set of guidelines and resources for graduate faculty members in accessible and inclusive supervision of graduate students with disabilities, including best practices for virtual supervision.

  1. b) Postsecondary institutions shall mandate that all faculties of graduate studies and graduate departments have explicit policies, practices and guidelines on accessibility and accommodation for graduate students with disabilities, which are developed in a consultative manner. Policies should include consideration of disclosure, accommodation, student supervision and graduate assessments (for example, comprehensive exams and thesis defenses), and take into account the roles of graduate students as academic/research staff and university employees.
  2. c) Review of these policies shall be attached to the graduate program quality assurance process.”

We therefore recommend that:

  1. Wherever the Initial Report recommends the creation of a standard or the development of a policy or guideline, such a standard, policy or guideline should be mandatory and should be spelled out in detail in the Education Accessibility Standard, rather than delegating authority to create it to some organization or department.

Third, it is especially important not to confuse or conflate the separate concepts of accessibility on the one hand, and accommodation of students with disabilities under the human rights duty to accommodate, on the other. The Initial Report appears to focus in significant part on the duty to accommodate, though not exclusively so.

To become accessible, a college or university must identify and remove existing recurring disability barriers and prevent the creation of new ones. On the other hand, the duty to accommodate assumes the inaccessible status quo with all its accessibility barriers. It focuses on creating individual “work-arounds” to get around those barriers, while the barriers themselves tend to remain in place.

It will always be necessary at colleges and universities to have in place effective mechanisms for implementing the duty to accommodate students with disabilities. To that end, it is great that the Committee’s Initial Report makes excellent recommendations to fortify these mechanisms for individual accommodation. This is vital now, while those institutions still have many accessibility barriers. Later, when those recurring barriers are removed, there will be a reduced need for individualized accommodation. However, even then, there will remain some need for the duty to accommodate to come into play.

Fourth, while we support virtually all of the Initial Report, and largely only ask for it to be fine-tuned as identified in this brief, we do flag one significant concern. The Initial Report principally speaks to middle and senior management at colleges and universities. It does so in language and recommendations that reflect and focus that environment. As such, the report may not appear to speak directly to students with disabilities themselves, and to front-line course instructors. We do not for a moment suggest that the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee is not keenly focused on the needs of students with disabilities. The Initial Report is commendably all about meeting their needs. However, such vague notions as “disability lens” are hard if not impossible for students to enforce, and hard if not impossible for front-line instructors to understand what they are now expected to change, and when they are in compliance.

There is the risk that the Initial Report’s recommendations could wrongly be converted into an increase in administrative bureaucracy, even though the Committee is seeking substantially increased direct substantive action on removing and preventing barriers. We encourage the Standards Development Committee, as it finalizes its report, to fine-tune its recommendations to make them more concrete and enforceable, so that students will know what results to expect, and front-line instructors will know what they must do. After all, it is the frontline interaction between students and their instructors where all these measures come to fruition.

Fifth, at several places in the Initial Report, it is recommended that colleges and universities make public a document, report or data, or submit them to the Government. All of these reports, documents and other data should be made widely, accessibly available to the public in each case.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. Wherever the Education Accessibility Standard will require colleges and universities to file a document or data with the Government, or to make public any document, report, or data, it should also require that these be submitted electronically to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario in an accessible format. The Standard should also require the Accessibility Directorate to make those documents, reports or data public on a publicly searchable database or hub.

Sixth, even if all the Standards Development Committee’s recommendations are adopted, we are deeply concerned that the AODA will continue to be weakly enforced. Stronger enforcement and compliance measures are needed. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee recommended such actions. With minor adjustments, they would readily fit the post-secondary sector.

For example, there is a pressing need for there to be on-site inspections, and not mere Government review of an obligated organization’s accessibility documents (such as policies and records of staff training). It is not good enough for colleges and universities to have good records on file. They need to deliver accessible education to students with disabilities

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee should endorse and echo the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Initial’ Report’s recommendations on enforcement of the AODA, with necessary changes to tailor them to the context of colleges and universities.

 4. Specific Recommendations

 a) General

Where this brief states that “a post-secondary education organization should …” or similar wording, this means that the Education Accessibility Standard should include a provision that requires the post-secondary education organization to take the step we describe.

The Standards Development Committee’s final report should make it clear that it applies to all disabilities covered by the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Charter of Rights and the AODA

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be revised to add that where the Education Accessibility Standard refers to “students with disabilities “, this should include any student who has any kind of disability, including, for example, any kind of physical, mental, sensory, learning, intellectual, mental health, communication, neurological, neurobehavioural or other kind of disability within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 b) Standards Development Committee Chair’s March 12, 2021 Letter Transmitting Its Initial Report to the Accessibility Minister

We agree with the Standards Development Committee chair’s March 12, 2021 cover letter to the Accessibility Minister, where it recommended the following – a point that the report itself should recommend:

“We also propose that the Postsecondary Education Accessibility Standards be applied beyond our mandate to include other educational contexts, such as privately funded colleges and universities and transitional job training programs.”

For example, it makes no sense that the Standard would apply to a law school, but not to the Law Society of Ontario’s Bar Admission course, which must be completed after law school graduation, to qualify for admission to the practice of law.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Standards Development Committee’s final report itself and not just the chair’s transmission letter should recommend that the Postsecondary Education Accessibility Standard apply to all other post-secondary educational contexts, such as privately funded colleges and universities and job training programs.

 c) Long Term Objective of the Post-Secondary Education Standard

We agree with the ideas and sentiments in the Initial Report’s discussion of the Standard’s long term objective, and with the Committee’s recommendation that its long term objective should be written right into the Standard itself. We also agree that the objective should be expressed in more focused and specific terms than have earlier AODA accessibility standards.

However, we believe that as written, the Initial Report’s long term objective is not strong or focused enough. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee Initial Report includes:

” Recommendation 1: The long-term objective of the standards:

With the support of the Ontario government, postsecondary publicly funded colleges and universities in Ontario will implement an intentional strategy:

that actively engages students with disabilities in the ongoing identification, removal and prevention of barriers

that recognizes disability as a critical aspect of the education sector’s commitment to equity, diversity and inclusion that creates policies, procedures and guidelines through an intersectional accessibility lens

where teaching and learning practices take into account the diversity of learning environments and needs throughout the academic journey

Realization of the long-term objective will result in all students with disabilities living and learning in an environment where they will:

  • feel valued, welcomed and a sense of belonging
  • navigate transparent systems without barriers
  • be provided with opportunities to realize their full potential both inside and outside of the classroom
  • have an equal opportunity to contribute, to learn and to demonstrate their knowledge”

The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’s Initial Report’s proposed objective is preferrable.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The long term objective of the Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard should be to ensure that by 2025, post-secondary education in Ontario will be fully accessible and barrier-free for students with disabilities:
    1. By removing and preventing accessibility barriers impeding students with disabilities from fully participating in, being fully included in, and fully benefitting from all aspects of post-secondary education in Ontario, and
  1. By providing a prompt, accessible, fair, effective and user-friendly process for students with disabilities to learn about and seek programs, services, supports, accommodations and placements tailored to the individual strengths and needs of each student with disabilities.”
  1. Eliminating or substantially reducing the need for students with disabilities to have to fight against post-secondary education accessibility barriers, one at a time, and the need for post-secondary education organizations to have to re-invent the accessibility wheel one education program at a time.

 d) Barrier Area 1: Changing Public Attitudes and Awareness

The Standards Development Committee’s report places emphasis on and trust in public education campaigns, including within colleges and universities, to change attitudes towards people with disabilities, and to reduce or eliminate ablism. For example, the Committee’s Initial Report includes, under its Recommendation 18 (Awareness):

“The government will develop guidance documents for obligated organizations and conduct a sustained, multi-faceted ongoing public education campaign on accessibility.”

Respectfully, we disagree. We have been witness to and participants in more such campaigns and efforts than can be counted. They change very little. They let politicians and government claim to be doing something, and posture to look like they are doing something, when it turns out to be superficial optics at best.

We do not need another Government announcing yet another public education campaign, and to then say they are listening to and acting on the advice of the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee. That risks being an excuse for their not taking action on other important recommendations that the Standards Development Committee is advancing.

Sadly, ample experience shows that such public education campaigns too often do not materially change what people in positions of authority do. It is ineffective to hope to first change attitudes towards people with disabilities in the vain hope that this will sometime later change their actions.

Instead, we must now change actions. The attitudes will change as a result. Put another way, nothing raises awareness and changes attitudes and culture better than a clear, specific, mandatory law such as a strong and effective Education Accessibility Standard, known to be backed by timely and effective enforcement. The detailed requirements, such as we recommend, to be included in that accessibility standard, then become the public education campaign.

An obligated organization may remove and prevent disability barriers because its attitudes have changed. It may do so because it is good for business. It may do so because it fears a Government inspection, enforcement and penalties. It may do so because it fears bad press if it doesn’t fix things. It may do so because it is the right thing to do. It may do so because of a combination of these motivations. We care principally that the obligated organization removes and prevents those barriers, and does so as soon as possible, for whatever reason.

 e) Barrier Area 2: Training

It is good that the Initial Report recommends training for post-secondary staff on AODA standards and the Ontario Human Rights Code. It should be expanded to also include their duties under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (equality rights to people with disabilities), which the AODA also aims to implement.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Standards Development Committee Initial Report’s Recommendation 20-23 (training) should be amended to include training on the duties of post-secondary institutions to people with disabilities under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and especially s. 15 (equality rights).

The Initial Report Recommendation 20-23 proposes that training should be provided at no cost to post-secondary institutions. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 20 includes:

“Online and in-person components shall be provided at no cost to postsecondary institutions across the province.”

If this means that The Government of Ontario should not charge for training resources, then we agree. If it means that post-secondary institutions should never have to pay anyone for such training, then we disagree. An accessibility standard can and should never purport to direct that an obligated organization never need pay for an accommodating or accessibility measure.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 20-23 (Training) should be revised to either remove the statement that post-secondary institutions should not pay for disability accessibility/inclusion training, or to clarify that the Ontario Government should not charge a fee for providing such training to those obligated organizations.

The Initial Report’s recommendations regarding training should specifically include training on the duty to accommodate people with disabilities, both employees and students with disabilities. We recognize that this is implicit in the Initial Report’s recommendations. It would be better to make it explicit.

We have found that there is a thirst for such training, and that training can start right now. In early October, 2021, the AODA Alliance made public a captioned training video on the duty to accommodate people with disabilities, available at https://youtu.be/y32XvjWmDAQ which runs about one and a quarter hours. It is presented by AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, and is posted on a post-secondary institution’s website, the Osgoode Hall Law School.

Within two weeks of being posted and publicized on social media by the AODA Alliance, it has been seen over 1,000 times and has received positive feedback. The Toronto District School Board sent it to all its principals and vice-principals.

With tools such as the video now available, action can start now.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Training recommendations, Recommendations 20 and following, should be revised to explicitly require training on the duty to accommodate students and employees with disabilities, and to direct that this training begin immediately, using resources that are now readily available for free.

We support the need for training of college and university facility management officials on universal design. Colleges and universities have been the venue of some of the troubling new buildings with serious accessibility problems.

This training should include direct presentations by users with disabilities who have suffered as a result. It should also require the viewing of projects that have gone wrong.

For example, the AODA Alliance widely-viewed video about serious accessibility problems at the Ryerson University Student Learning Centre, available at https://youtu.be/4oe4xiKknt0, is now being used for training in some design professional circles. The David Onley AODA Independent Review references that video. We encourage its use. We emphasize that we do not hold out Ryerson as an especially problematic place. Rather, that video illustrates problems that we find to be generally typical and troubling around Ontario.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. “Recommendation 29: Facilities Management/Design/Construction staff” Should be amended to require that training of those responsible for facilities at post-secondary institutions and those who design such facilities should be required to include direct live training from people with disabilities who have suffered from post-secondary institutions’ built environment barriers, and should include video depictions of such barriers, such as the AODA Alliance’s videos available at https://youtu.be/4oe4xiKknt0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgfrum7e-_0&t=87s

Training for all post-secondary employees, and especially for course instructors and other creators of electronic content (such as web site content) should be required to have up-to-date training on accessibility barriers in the area of documents and information and communication generally. For example, they need to be trained that if a document is posted in pdf, it MUST simultaneously be posted in html and/or MS Word. Too many still believe that pdf is or can be an accessible format. This is simply erroneous.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Training recommendations 20 and following should be expanded to require up-to-date training on the creation of accessible digital content, such as in online posts and electronic documents, especially for course instructors and anyone else who creates digital content for use by students and others in the post-secondary community. This training should make it clear that if a document is posted or circulated in pdf, it must also be posted or circulated in MS Word and/or html.

Those involved in the procurement of technology for use in the college or university should be required to get training on procuring accessible technology. Though hard to believe, York University procured an entirely new phone system replete with new accessibility barriers, during the time that the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee was doing its work. This no doubt cost thousands of dollars to implement across the university. Those overseeing this were unaware of its obvious barriers, that became evident within moments of looking at the new phones.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Training recommendations 20 and following should be expanded to require that college or university staff involved in the procurement of any technology or equipment be required to be trained on technology accessibility needs and requirements.

We offer additional proposals to supplement the Initial Report’s Training recommendations.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Education Accessibility Standard should require that:
  1. Each post-secondary education organization should provide teaching coaches with expertise in universal design in learning and differential instruction to support instructional staff.
  1. The Ontario Government should create templates or models for the training of college and university instructors on universal design in learning and differential instruction, so that each post-secondary education organization does not have to reinvent the wheel in this context.

 f) Barrier Group 3: Assessment, curriculum and instruction

The Initial Report correctly identifies the serious barrier here facing college and university students with disabilities. It is important for the Final Report to directly identify the cause of this problem. If we do not isolate the cause, we will not find the right cure.

Here is a cause that needs to be openly identified. The key product or service that colleges and universities provide to their students is education, through courses, classes and other supports. The direct provider of this product or service is the course instructor.

To be hired as a post-secondary course instructor, a person does not have to have any knowledge or training in universal design in learning (UDl), i.e. how to effectively teach all students with disabilities in their classes. To be hired as a professor or course instructor at a college or university, a candidate does generally not need to have any training, skill or background in how to teach.

This systemic barrier is deeply embedded in the college and university system. It differs markedly from K-12 schools. To be hired as a teacher, a person must have qualified as a teacher, through designated post-secondary training. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee has pointed out that even there, there is no requirement for teachers to know how to teach students with disabilities in order to get hired as a teacher. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee makes several recommendations to address that major shortcoming.

The solution is twofold. First, those already teaching in colleges and universities will need to receive substantial training on how to teach in a way that embeds UDL, so that all students with disabilities can learn in their courses. Second, the hiring, promotion and recruitment processes at Ontario colleges and universities must in future include requirements in this area, so that as new recruits join their teaching faculties, they will be better equipped from the beginning. Since getting a job teaching at Ontario colleges and universities is so competitive, there should be ample capacity to thereby make progress.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s recommendations on curriculum, assessment and instruction (Recommendations 31 and following) should be expanded
  1. to identify that a key systemic barrier is the fact that course instructors need not be able to teach, or to teach students with disabilities, to be hired, and to make recommendations for training existing instructor in this area, and
  1. to require such qualifications in the future for recruiting and promoting future faculty.

The Initial report calls for specific Government funding for colleges and universities to hire subject matter experts in the creation of accessible instruction materials. Recommendation 38 of the report includes:

“In consideration of the costs involved in hiring subject matter experts in accessible and inclusive pedagogy/andragogy, and creating accessible materials, the Ontario government should provide dedicated funding to the universities and colleges to support these standards.”

We understand the motivation underlying this recommendation, and other similar recommendations. However, it is critical that the Education Accessibility Standard does not itself perpetuate systemic discriminatory conduct. It would be unacceptable for any colleges and universities to refuse to meet a human rights obligation until and unless the Ontario Government specifically pays for new job posts to do this work. The Ontario Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights have included equality rights for students with disabilities for decades. This is not a new mandate, and should not be treated as such.

Of course, if the Government provides additional financing, that can be a positive step. However, there must be no linkage or precondition that the Government must first fund compliance by colleges and universities with their human rights obligations to students with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report, including recommendations such as Recommendation 38, should be revised to make it clear that whether or not the Ontario Government supplements their funding, they must fulfil their decades-old obligations to students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights.

We supplement the Initial Report’s recommendations in the area of Curriculum, Instruction and Assessment to help make those recommendations fully effective.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. To ensure that instructional materials are fully accessible on a timely basis to students with disabilities such as vision loss and those with learning disabilities that affect reading, each post-secondary education organization should:
  1. Promptly survey students with disabilities who need accessible instructional materials, and their instructional staff, to get their front-line experiences on whether they get timely access to accessible instructional materials, and to get specifics on where this has been most lacking.
  1. Establish a dedicated office or resource within the post-secondary education organization, or shared among post-secondary education organizations, to convert instructional materials to an accessible format, where needed, on a timely basis. A student should not be required to show proof that they own a hard copy of an item to be able to get it in an accessible format.
  1. The Education Accessibility Standard should require the Ontario Government to implement, monitor and publicly report on province-wide strategies to ensure the procurement of and use of accessible instructional materials across post-secondary education organizations.

We do not know what is meant by the Initial Report’s Recommendation 57. It states:

“Recommendation 57: Jurisdiction of accessibility supports in work integrated learning settings (non-regulatory)

Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility should provide guidance to postsecondary institutions and employers with respect to the division of responsibilities and applicability of the act’s standards and accommodations (Ontario Human Rights Commission) for students with disabilities in required work integrated learning settings.”

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 57 should be explained and clarified, or removed.

It is important for each college and university to ensure barrier-free post-secondary program admission requirements. There is now a risk that admission requirements to a post-secondary program that unintentionally or inadvertently impede access to the program for otherwise-qualified students with disabilities. It is important to ensure that students with disabilities can have their eligibility for admission to a post-secondary program fairly and accurately assessed.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. Every post-secondary education organization should be required to review its admission criteria for gaining admission to any of its post-secondary education programs, to identify any barriers that would impede otherwise-qualified students with disabilities from admission, and shall adjust those criteria to either:
  1. Remove the admission criteria that constitute a barrier to admission, or
  1. Provide an alternative method for assessing students with disabilities for admission to the program.
g)  Barrier area 4: Digital learning and technology

The Initial Report calls for definitions certain terms regarding accessible technology to be established by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. This is not within that Ministry’s knowledge or expertise. Moreover, under the AODA, it is the accessibility standard that should set this definition to be enforceable. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 65 states:

“Recommendation 65: Accessible technology definitions

The Ministry of Colleges and Universities to provide and adopt clear and consistent definitions across the education sector for key terms relating to digital learning and technology.”

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 65 should be amended to provide that the Education Accessibility Standard, and not the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, should adopt clear and consistent definitions across the education sector for key terms relating to digital learning and technology.

The Initial Report’s Recommendation 68 (Digital learning and technology plan) proposes that all colleges and universities:

“must develop and make publicly available a plan to seamlessly include accessibility in the digital learning and technology used throughout the academic journey of all students with disabilities.”

The Initial Report’s Recommendation 70 would require colleges and universities to each consult with people with disabilities, including students with disabilities, on this plan.

This might at first all appear to be helpful. However, in the end, it requires all colleges and universities to undertake duplicative work, and to ask people with disabilities, including students with disabilities, the same questions about the same barriers, one institution after the next. The AODA is meant to avoid such duplication of efforts. The Education Accessibility Standard should set the detailed requirements for such a plan. All the plan needs to do is to implement the detailed accessibility requirements that the Education Accessibility Standard should itself set. The same goes for school boards under the K-12 Education Accessibility Standard.

If such plans are to be required, the Education Accessibility Standard should require that they be submitted to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, and that they be centrally posted on a searchable online hub.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 68 and following, regarding accessible technology, should be revised to:
  1. require that the Education Accessibility Standard itself set specific requirements for accessible technology, and
  1. require that each obligated organization submit its accessibility plan to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, which the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario would then be required to post online in a searchable accessible public online hub.

An excellent example of a meritorious recommendation in the Standards Development Committee’s Initial Report which is unfortunately listed as “non-regulatory” is Recommendation 76, regarding the establishment of a the accessible digital technology lead in all colleges and universities. We agree with the substance of this recommendation. However, it should not be “non-regulatory” and hence, voluntary and unenforceable. It should instead be included in the Education Accessibility Standard and be mandatory and enforceable.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 76 should be revised to make it mandatory for each college and university to appoint an accessible digital technology lead.

We respectfully but profoundly object to a key part of the Standards Development Committee’s Recommendation regarding so-called “Accessible PDFs”. We fully agree with the Standards Development Committee’s recommendation, where it would require alternative accessible formatted documents to be made available when a pdf is provided or posted. However, we disagree with the Initial Report’s proposal that colleges and universities should invest time, energy and resources into training their staff and instructors to create so-called “accessible pdfs” with a view to their becoming a long term option.

The Initial Report includes:

“Recommendation 87: Accessible PDFs

Postsecondary institutions shall provide all documents in an accessible format. In the case of a PDF, this committee is recommending a phased approach:

phase 1: postsecondary institutions shall use a PDF document only if an accessible alternative format is also simultaneously available

phase 2: postsecondary institutions shall provide suitable software and training for the creation of accessible PDFs to the PDF/UA 1 /ISO 14289 standard. Following this date, any document provided as a PDF must meet this international standard. However, to phase in this requirement it is expected that postsecondary institutions continue to publish PDF-based digital content to be as accessible as their training and applications permit, even if an accessible alternative is provided. This will lessen any remediation costs if there is a need to go back and ensure that currently produced PDFs meet the PDF/UA 1/ISO 14289 standard. This will also demonstrate the postsecondary institutions’ commitment and progress towards creating accessible PDFs.

Timeline: Phase 1: within six months of regulation being enacted. Phase 2: within two years of the regulation being enacted

Recommendation 88: Software and training for accessible PDFs

Postsecondary institutions shall provide suitable software and training for creation of accessible PDFs.

Timeline: Within six months of regulation being enacted

Recommendation 88: Software and training for accessible PDFs

Postsecondary institutions shall provide suitable software and training for creation of accessible PDFs.”

We strongly disagree that colleges and universities should invest any time, resources and energy into training themselves to be able to provide “accessible pdfs.” These resources can be far better used promoting accessibility in other areas. Here’s why:

First, the term “accessible pdf” is a misnomer. Even if the document’s creator spends a great deal of time trying to make their pdf accessible, it still is harder to use than formats such as MS Word.

The Initial Report’s recommendation relies on an ISO standard that we do not endorse or accept. It should not be the legislated standard.

Second, when a person with a disability receives a pdf, they have no idea before they open it whether it has any accessibility at all built into it. Users with disabilities should not be left wondering every time they get a pdf whether it has any accessibility features built into it.

Third, when an author types a document in a format such as MS Word, the starting point is that it is generally accessible unless the author starts doing things to the document that creates barriers. When they convert it to a pdf, its accessibility is thereby destroyed. The author then must spend time trying to rebuild its accessibility. It is better not to create the new barriers in the first place.

Fourth, the pdf software is still evolving. Right now, it is reported to have accessibility bugs. See e.g. https://acrobat.uservoice.com/forums/590923-acrobat-for-windows-and-mac/suggestions/44183082-accessibility-errors-with-pdf-maker-update-sept-20

Fifth, the Initial Repport’s recommendations here will not only require training now for existing staff. It will require ongoing training as new staff join. The risk that in the interim, someone will continue creating problematic pdfs is a substantial one. The message “don’t use pdf, or if you do, also share an accessible MS Word or html document” is far easier to convey, and is far more likely to stick.

Sixth, even if a course instructor is trained on steps to try to insert some accessibility into a pdf, and even if these current accessibility problems were eliminated from the software, which is all speculative, there is no assurance that this training will remain relevant by the time they must use it, and that it will remain relevant in the future.

In sum, it is wasteful to invest time and effort into an effort to get people to make so-called “accessible pdfs”, when they are not assured to be accessible, when there are much easier and no-cost alternatives to such training, and when there are so many other pressing needs for the training resources that would be invested into pdfs. It would be a far better use of such resources to spend the money on training staff and faculty on creating accessible content in the native application such as Word, PowerPoint and Google Docs.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 87 should be revised to eliminate “phase two”, which now provides:

“phase 2: postsecondary institutions shall provide suitable software and training for the creation of accessible PDFs to the PDF/UA 1 /ISO 14289 standard. Following this date, any document provided as a PDF must meet this international standard. However, to phase in this requirement it is expected that postsecondary institutions continue to publish PDF-based digital content to be as accessible as their training and applications permit, even if an accessible alternative is provided. This will lessen any remediation costs if there is a need to go back and ensure that currently produced PDFs meet the PDF/UA 1/ISO 14289 standard. This will also demonstrate the postsecondary institutions’ commitment and progress towards creating accessible PDFs.”

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 88 should be removed.

We ask the Standards Development Committee to add some additional recommendations that will help make the Digital Barriers recommendations as effective as possible.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to recommend that the Education Accessibility Standard will require each post-secondary education organization to ensure that its information technology support and help staff includes specialists in access technology, and that students with disabilities get prompt access to IT support when needed.

With the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, people with disabilities have come to experience that different remote classroom and conference platforms are much more accessible than others. When the pandemic is finally behind us, colleges and universities should benefit from lessons learned. Accessible virtual classroom and conference platforms should be available for students who, because of disability, are more effectively accommodated by attending virtually. This should take place even if the course is being taught in person.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be revised to require that
  1. Only accessible conference and remote class platforms may be used.
  1. the Ontario Government should be required to report semi-annually to the public and to colleges and universities on the comparative accessibility of different virtual meeting and teaching platforms, so that colleges and universities do not have to repeat the same investigations.
  1. Even when classes are taught in person, students with disabilities should have the option of attending virtually via an accessible virtual meeting platform, where this accommodation would be helpful to them because of their disability.

It is essential for any learning management system to be accessible, and for all its accessibility features to remained turned on.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to require that any learning management system only be procured and used if it is accessible, and for all its accessibility features to be locked in the “on” position so that they cannot be turned off.

Increasingly, electronic kiosks are being used, as well as inaccessible point-of-sale devices restaurant tablet ordering procedures. The 2011 Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation provisions regarding electronic kiosks have not been effective. They are too vague and are not effectively enforced.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to ban the use of inaccessible electronic kiosks, electronic point-of-sale devices and restaurant tablet ordering technology at any colleges and universities.

 h) Barrier area 5: Organizational barriers

We support the Initial Report’s Recommendation 91 (Access to Disability Accommodation Information), calling for all students to be notified about availability of disability supports. We encourage the Standards Development Committee to add some more specifics, to help ensure that this is as effective as possible.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 91 (Access to Disability Accommodation Information) should be expanded to ensure that the Education Accessibility Standard requires:
  1. The post-secondary education organization’s interactive voice response system for receiving incoming phone calls should announce to all callers the organization’s commitment to accommodate students with disabilities and the number to press to get introductory information about how to seek such.
  1. Programming handouts and broadcast email communications to incoming students should include similar general information.
  1. the post-secondary education organization’s broadcast email announcements and other communications to the student population should include summary information to this effect with relevant links.
  1. Classroom instructors should make announcements in their first week of classes to this effect.

The Initial Report’s Recommendation 92 addresses Documentation policies for academic accommodations. We agree that the Education Accessibility Standard should set standards in this area. We also agree that this process must comply with human rights requirements. However, we do not agree that the Initial Report where it recommends:

“Based on these requirements, postsecondary institutions shall develop in a collaborative manner, a consistent and clear set of policies and practices about the nature and extent of documentation required to establish eligibility for academic accommodation.”

The Education Accessibility Standard should set the standard, not colleges and universities. That is what an accessibility standard is for. It should, for example, set some base line requirements.

For example, we understand that some colleges or universities may ask students with disabilities to re-document their disability each academic year. This is entirely unjustified and an unfair burden on students with disabilities, in cases where their disability is a permanent one. If a student is deaf or blind or has autism, for example, that condition is obviously permanent.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 92 should be revised to provide that the Education Accessibility Standard itself should set a clear set of barrier-free requirements regarding a student’s documenting an academic accommodation need. For example, a student should not be required to re-document their disability each year, where it is a permanent or long term disability.

We support the Initial Report’s Recommendation 94 (Full participation). It requires colleges and universities to inform students “…as early as possible in a readily accessible and understandable way, of the institution’s recognition of its duty to ensure that all academically qualified students with disabilities have the right to full participation and full inclusion in all the postsecondary institution’s programming, events, orientations and academic life.”

To make this as clear as possible, it would be helpful if this explicitly includes a reference to the duty to accommodate students with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 94 should be amended to explicitly require that colleges and universities tell students with disabilities, as soon as possible, about the institution’s duty to accommodate students with disabilities.

In the Initial Report’s Recommendation 95: (Clear policies and procedures) the Standards Development Committee recommends that policies and procedures be adopted in colleges and universities:

“… outlining the process by which students with disabilities can access accommodations for academically related learning activities, including, but not limited to:

classroom

libraries

common areas

online learning tools including accessible software

tests/examinations

internships

practica

co-ops

field placements

apprenticeships

work integrated learning

other experiential learning that are part of their academic program of study”.

This is what the Education Accessibility Standard itself is supposed to specifically detail. Best practices, policies, guidelines and the like are not mandatory or enforceable. They can change on a whim.

Moreover, as noted earlier, the sooner colleges and universities have detailed and specific requirements to meet for barrier identification, barrier removal, and barrier prevention for recurring disability barriers, the fewer accommodations that students with disabilities will need.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 94-95 be revised to set out specific accessibility requirements for colleges and universities in such areas as classrooms, libraries, common areas, online learning tools including accessible software, tests/examinations, internships, practica, co-ops, field placements, apprenticeships, work-integrated learning, other experiential learning that are part of their academic program of study, request for priority enrollment in a course, and accessible housing placement. For example, to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in a post-secondary education organization’s experiential learning programs, each such organization should:
  1. Review its experiential learning programs to identify and remove any accessibility barriers;
  1. Put in place a process to affirmatively reach out to potential placement organizations in order to ensure that a range of accessible placement opportunities in which students with disabilities can participate are available;
  1. Ensure that its partner organizations that accept students for experiential learning placements are effectively informed of their duty to accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities;
  1. Create and share supports and advice for placement organizations who need assistance to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in their experiential learning placements;
  1. Monitor placement organizations to ensure they have someone in place to ensure that students with disabilities are effectively accommodated, and to ensure that effective accommodation was provided during each placement of a student with a disability who needed accommodation; and
  1. Survey students with disabilities and experiential learning placement organizations at the end of any experiential learning placements to see if their disability-related needs were effectively accommodated.

We also support the Initial Report’s Recommendation 96 (Disability Accommodation Plans). However, it is especially important that the accommodation application and planning process for a student be made swift, simple, and de-bureaucratized. We have received feedback that at some post-secondary institutions, the procedure is overly bureaucratic.

Moreover, to succeed, colleges and universities must remove policies that create clear and obvious barriers. For example, the University of Toronto’s Faculty of Law has a policy forbidding the recording of classes. If students with disabilities need a class recorded, they must go through the process of applying for a disability accommodation. This is an unnecessary and inappropriate step.

In sharp contrast, the Osgoode Hall Law School commendably does not ban the recording of classes at all. To the contrary, it has for several years followed the practice of having all lecture classes automatically recorded, explicitly to be available as an accommodation. Law students at that law school do not have to go through any bureaucracy to access such recordings.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 94 and following should be revised to:
  1. Require obligated organizations to review their accommodation procedures for systemic barriers, such as a ban on recording classes to which an exception must be sought through the accommodation process; and
  1. Require that those disability barriers be removed and prevented.

It is a positive step that the Initial Report urges that annual reports be made by colleges and universities about their disability accommodation caseload in Recommendation 98 (Disability Accommodation Caseload – Reporting). We add that these figures should be required to be submitted to The Government and that The Government be required to make them publicly available on an institution-by-institution basis, and as provincial aggregations or averages.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 98 (Disability Accommodation Caseload – Reporting) be revised to require that each college or university disability accommodation caseloads be reported to The Government, with The Government being required to publish these online annually on an institution-by-institution basis, and as provincial aggregations or averages.

We share the goal in Recommendation 99 (Accessibility Lens), but not how the Standards Development Committee proposes to address that goal. The Initial Report delegates to the Accessibility Ministry responsibility to consult with key stakeholders to create an accessibility lens for colleges and universities to use in major decisions. That is in effect assigning them to create a de facto Education Accessibility Standard, but calling it a “disability lens”. Instead, it is the Standards Development Committee that through its consultation should set out the specific recurring disability barriers and the corrective measures to avoid them.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 99 (Accessibility Lens) be removed and replaced with specific recommendations on the recurring disability barriers to be removed and prevented, and what must be done to remove and prevent them.

We agree with Recommendations 104-106 (Accessible Procurement Policies and Procedures), but we ask that these be refined to clarify that these procurement standards must be detailed and specific, both on the procurement process and the kinds of barriers to be avoided (a non-exhaustive specification of barriers). The extremely vague wording in the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation for the past decade has been ineffective. For example, section 5 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation now provides:

“Procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities

  1. (1) The Government of Ontario, Legislative Assembly and designated public sector organizations shall incorporate accessibility design, criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities, except where it is not practicable to do so. O. Reg. 191/11, s. 5 (1); O. Reg. 413/12, s. 4 (1).

(2) If the Government of Ontario, Legislative Assembly or a designated public sector organization determines that it is not practicable to incorporate accessibility design, criteria and features when procuring or acquiring goods, services or facilities, it shall provide, upon request, an explanation.”

The IASR’s “not practicable” standard wrongly falls short of the mandatory human rights standard of “undue hardship”. Moreover, the vague requirement of incorporating accessible features does not ensure that no new barriers are created.

There is no effective monitoring or enforcement of the current vague requirements. As noted above, York University purchased a new telephone system replete with accessibility barriers under that regime.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 104-16 ((Accessible Procurement Policies and Procedures) should be revised to require that the accessible procurement standards are mandatory, include detailed specifics, are more robust than the current section 5 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, and require public accountability/reporting to ensure that they can be effectively monitored and enforced.

We commend Recommendations 108-110 (Handling Accommodation Requests). We would add that at present, from feedback received, some of these processes are too slow and bureaucratic. There should be a simplified process required. Where the request is for a routine accommodation, it should go through a rapid process. Those which may be more unusual or complex and require more effort should be routed into a process designed to effectively address their greater complexity.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 108-110 (Handling Accommodation Requests) should be expanded to spell out mandatory baseline requirements for student accommodation request procedures, so that each college or university does not have to re-design their own procedures, and which:
  1. Require the de-bureaucratizing of the handling of accommodation requests by students;
  1. Require a fast-track process for routine accommodation requests which are suitable for such a process;
  1. Require a separate track for more unusual or complex requests to be addressed in an effective and time-sensitive way; and
  1. Ensure that if the student had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) from an Ontario school, or a finding by an Ontario school board’s Identification and Placement Review Committee (IPRC) that identified them as having a disability (exceptionality), or a comparable form of documentation from another jurisdiction, then the post-secondary education organization should treat that as sufficient proof that the student has a disability, without requiring further assessments or proof, unless the post-secondary education organization has independent proof showing that the student no longer has that disability. In that case, the post-secondary education organization shall provide the student with that proof and shall provide the student with an opportunity to demonstrate that they have a disability-related accommodation need. The student’s IEP should not be treated as a ceiling on what a person can request, since a person’s accommodations needs may be different in the postsecondary environment.

In the Initial Report’s Recommendations 111 –113 (Service Animals), there are separate references to service animals and support animals. This incorrectly implies that a support animal is not a service animal. We doubt that this is the Standards Development Committee’s intention.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 111-113 (Service Animals) should be revised to replace the term “service animals and support animals” with the more accurate term “service animals, including support animals.”

We support the Standards Development Committees various university governance recommendations, but add one more to make them as effective as possible.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. Each post-secondary education organization should be required to establish a permanent committee of its governing board of directors or trustees to be called the “Accessibility Committee”. This Accessibility Committee should have responsibility and authority to oversee the organization’s compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and with the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as far as they guarantee the right of students with disabilities to fully participate in and fully benefit from the education programs and opportunities that the organization provides.

It is very commendable that the Standards Development Committee made equity, diversity, and inclusion a core principle for its work. The Initial Report states:

“Therefore the principles of equity, diversity, and inclusion underlie all aspects of the committee’s work.”

In recent years, there has been a commendable and growing recognition that it is important for an effective education system to focus at all levels on equity, diversity, and inclusion. Equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts have, for example, expanded curriculum content and course offerings to address the needs and circumstances of women, racialized peoples, Indigenous communities, and the LGBTQ population.

Such equity, diversity, and inclusion efforts need to fully and equally include people with disabilities and effectively address their issues and needs. This is not an isolated concern. Across the broader K-12 and post-secondary education systems as well as in some other contexts, equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives have excluded disability altogether or have included but substantially underserved people with disabilities. In those instances, equity for some creates equity for none. An old hierarchy replaces a new hierarchy, in which people with disabilities remain in a position of chronic disadvantage.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Standards Development Committee should recommend that any equity, diversity, and inclusion strategy at any college or university should be reviewed and, where needed, revised to ensure that disability is a full and equal target and focus of that strategy.

People with disabilities working in post-secondary education organizations often face accessibility barriers in the workplace that also hurt students with disabilities. The experience and expertise of people with disabilities working in post-secondary education organizations should be effectively harnessed to help root out the accessibility barriers that impede students with disabilities. This is because workplace disability barriers and education service disability barriers are often the same or substantially overlap.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. Each post-secondary education organization should be required to establish a committee of those employees and volunteers with disabilities who wish to join, to give the organization’s senior management feedback on the barriers in the organization that could impede employees or students with disabilities.

 i) Barrier area 7: Physical and architectural barriers Recommendations

The Initial Report’s Recommendations 127 proposes adoption of the Brock University technical requirements for accessible built environment design. We propose instead that the Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) established at the Ontario College of Art and Design University (OCAD University) be adopted: https://www.ocadu.ca/sites/default/files/2021-06/OCADU_FADS_21-05-26.pdf

This version of FADS has been updated to include or remove any conflicts with the 2020 and 2022 changes to the Ontario Building Code. It also has improved details for some elements and for some facility types making it a more up-to-date standard for built environment design for education facilities, including the types of facilities that might be found at post-secondary education institutions.

This can be enriched by the built environment proposals set out in the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee’ Initial Report, which are set out below in Appendix 1.

These standards must govern not only the buildings and structures, but the furniture as well.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 127-128 should be revised to recommend
  1. The adoption of the Education Accessibility Standards of the OCAD University Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) https://www.ocadu.ca/sites/default/files/2021-06/OCADU_FADS_21-05-26.pdf enriched by the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Initial Report’s built environment recommendations; and
  1. Set standards for accessibility of the furniture in the premises of colleges and universities.

The Initial Report’s Recommendation 139 (Identify Barriers and Provide Accommodations) states:

“Postsecondary institutions shall proactively identify barriers in the built environment that cannot be removed or avoided through alternative access due to legal or geographic barriers, such as heritage designation or zoning restrictions.”

This recommendation is incorrect. The Ontario Human Rights Code and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevail over other regulatory and statutory instruments, such as zoning bylaws. Moreover, heritage is not itself an “undue hardship” that overrides the duty to accommodate. At most, when a heritage building is involved, an organization can first seek ways to add accessibility, with the least impact on the building’s heritage features.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 139 (Identify Barriers and Provide Accommodations) should be revised to remove an incorrect suggestion that zoning bylaws or heritage designation are a legal bar to implementing accessibility in a building.

The Initial Report’s Recommendation 153 (Signage and Wayfinding) contains some measures to address way-finding. We add that there is a need for each campus to be reviewed to ensure that there is effective cane-detectable way-finding both indoors and outside. As one example, York University’s Downsview campus can be extremely challenging for a person with vision loss to navigate because, among other barriers, outdoor paved paths curve into each other rather than having clearly defined cane-detectable intersections.

Here again, the OCAD University FADS should be adopted, not Brock University’s standard.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 153 (Signage and Wayfinding) should be revised to:
  1. Invoke the OCAD University FADS standard for signage and way-finding, instead of those by Brock University; and
  1. Require that each campus review its indoor and outdoor property for effective cane-detectable way-finding, and institute such way-finding if inadequate or non-existent.

It is important not to exacerbate existing barriers in the built environment at any colleges or universities.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s recommendations regarding the built environment should be expanded to require that, where possible, a post-secondary education organization should not renovate an existing facility that lacks disability accessibility, unless the organization has a plan to also make that facility accessible. For example, a post-secondary education organization should not spend public money to renovate the second storey of a facility which is inaccessible, if the organization does not have a plan to make that second storey disability-accessible. Very pressing health and safety concerns should be the only reason for any exception to this.

Part of the built environment at a post-secondary institution is its gym facilities and equipment.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s built environment recommendations should be expanded to require that each post-secondary education organization:
  1. Take inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor gym, sports, athletic and like equipment and spaces, and make this public, including posting this information online;
  1. Adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of existing gym, sports, athletic or other like equipment or spaces, in consultation with students with disabilities; and
  1. Ensure that a qualified accessibility expert is engaged to ensure that the purchase of new equipment or remediation of existing equipment or spaces is properly conducted, with their advice being given directly to the post-secondary education organization.

The Initial Report does not set out specific recommendations regarding the shoveling of snow. Each winter, every campus implements some sort of snow removal to ensure that the campus community can get around and into its buildings. However, this may not ensure that people with disabilities can also safely navigate the campus. Snow can be piled up along accessible paths of travel.

A few years ago, one law student’s video went viral and gained media attention. The video showed that snow was shoveled in a way that enabled walking people to use paths on one campus, but which did not enable safe passage by a person using a wheelchair. We include the February 2, 2019 CBC News report on this, as it fully illustrates this issue.

Originally posted at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/watch-this-york-student-struggle-to-get-to-class-in-a-wheelchair-due-to-uncleared-snow-1.5003306

“Ali Imrie’s Twitter video shows her struggling on a snow-covered path on university campus

Kelda Yuen

Osgoode Hall Law School student Ali Imrie says she missed one class and was late for another this week due to snow-covered sidewalks on the York University campus. (Ali Imrie/ Twitter)

Ali Imrie says it’s only 500 metres from her student apartment to Osgoode Hall Law School on the York University campus in Toronto, but even so, she wasn’t able to make it to all her classes this week due to uncleared snow.

“Honestly, this week hasn’t been any different than any other week in the snow,” she said.

But this time, she took a video and posted it on Twitter. The 17-second clip posted Thursday evening shows a friend struggling to push her home from class along a snowy path. At one point, they appear to get stuck. Within a day, the post garnered over 20,000 views and was shared almost 500 times.

The video is raising the issue of a lack of accessibility for students with mobility issues during weather events like the snowstorm the Toronto area experienced this week.

Imrie is quick to note she understands it is difficult to keep pathways clear with the “crazy amounts of snow” that fell, but she is frustrated at what she believes is a lack of initiative from the school to keep on top of snow clearing.

Barbara Joy, the spokesperson for York, told CBC Toronto Friday the university has reached out to Imrie and has since done checks to ensure all paths on campus are clear.

The specific path in Imrie’s video, Joy said, “was actually cleared several times since the snow began, but unfortunately it wasn’t adequate.”

Hoping for a permanent solution

Imrie says she has been flagging the problem for some time now, and she wants a more permanent solution.

This is her third year using a wheelchair since being diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome, and her second year living on campus as a part-time law student.

When she first arrived, her mobility issues made it “difficult and isolating,” she said.

“It got to the point, last January, where I had a rotating schedule of which friend could meet me before or after class to help me get there,” she told CBC Toronto.

She says she contacted the school about it repeatedly, but the problem of uncleared snow persisted.

“The reaction will be reactive and in the moment — it’s fixed. But given it’s been a year and I keep needing to bring it up every time it snows, what’s missing is the proactive piece. There’s not really been any lasting change.”

Imrie says she understands York ‘is a really big campus and it’s difficult to keep it clear all the time,’ but she hopes the university can be more proactive in making sure paths remain clear.

Joy admits York needs to “do better.”

One thing she says the university will do is ensure employees perform more checks to make sure all pathways remain clear.

“With storms, there is blowing snow and other things that impact the way the path is covered in snow, so even if it was cleared in the morning, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t check it in the afternoon,” she said.

“We are going to keep on top of it to make sure it’s maintained.”

Joy also points out there is a shuttle that’s offered to students with mobility issues.

But Imrie says the shuttle can take up to an hour to arrive after being booked.

“For me, because (my illness) is so fatiguing, if I’m in a three-hour class, I can’t add another hour on either end to wait for a van.”

Joy says the school is looking into ways the shuttle can accommodate her better.

Not just a York University problem

Imrie, meanwhile, has another suggestion.

While it would be ideal to have the paths clear at all times, she says the ones heavily used by students with mobility issues should perhaps get priority when it comes to snow clearing.

“There’s different implications for me versus someone who’s walking.”

She is also quick to note that lack of accessibility is not just a problem her school needs to fix.

She says on her route to class, she has to travel on a sidewalk partially owned by the city.

She says it’s rarely cleared after a snowstorm.

“It’s an issue everywhere.””

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to include, in its built environment recommendations, specific mandatory requirements at all colleges and universities to ensure that snow-shoveling creates no disability barriers and is sufficient to enable people with disabilities to navigate the campus.

It is important for the Education Accessibility Standard to include protections regarding the Indoor air/environment quality to ensure accessibility for those with environmentally linked disabilities, such as Environmental Sensitivities (which includes Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, EMF Sensitivities, etc.), Fibromyalgia, Asthma, Cancer, Diabetes, Chemical Pneumonitis, Migraines, Chronic Fatigue, Lyme Disease, etc.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report’s built environment recommendations should be expanded to include indoor air quality requirements for persons for whom this can create disability barriers.

It is important for students with disabilities and other people with disabilities to know where accessibility features are included in the campus, so they can plan their route of travel.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be revised to require each college or university to create and make available an up-to-date guide on the accessibility features in its built environment, such as electric door openers and ramps.

Since college and university campuses now have many accessibility barriers in their built environment, it is important for students with disabilities to be assured that courses they wish to take will be offered in an accessible classroom.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be revised to:
  1. Ensure that students with disabilities have available an earlier or accelerated process for getting their course selections confirmed; and
  1. Have in place a mandatory process for the college or university to make priority re-assignment of any classes from inaccessible classrooms to accessible classrooms, where needed.

Campuses can have paths of travel blocked due to construction. Without centralized control, students and others can encounter unpredictable barriers.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to require each college and university to:
  2. Ensure to the extent possible that construction projects on campus do not block accessible paths of travel, and accessibility features such as ramps and accessible doors; and
  1. Maintain a publicly-accessible up-to-date web page or other easily-accessed public announcement of the location and expected timing of construction projects that may impede accessible travel.

Graduation ceremonies should always be accessible to students, family members, friends, and staff with disabilities.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to specifically require that the venue of graduation ceremonies be accessible to students, family members, friends and staff members with disabilities, including the graduation platform.

The Ontario Government funds some building projects at colleges or universities. It must ensure that any such projects will be fully accessible before agreeing to that funding. In 2017, the Ontario Government agreed to invest $125 million in a new Markham campus for York University that had several serious accessibility barriers in its design.

We therefore recommend that:

  1. The Education Accessibility Standard require that the Ontario Government ensure that public funds are never used to create or perpetuate disability barriers in the built environment.
  1. The Ontario Government be required to revise its funding criteria for construction of facilities at a post-secondary education organization to ensure that it requires, and does not obstruct, the inclusion of all needed accessibility features in that construction project.

 Appendix 1. Initial Recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on Ensuring Physical Accessibility of the Built Environment in Education Settings

(Note: Even though these recommendations are written to address the school setting, they can easily apply to a very wide range of other buildings)

Specific Accessibility Requirements Recommendations

Recommendation Part Three: Usable Accessible Design for Exterior Site Elements

The following should be required:

  1. Access to the site for pedestrians
  2. a) Clear, intuitive connection to the accessible entrance
  3. b) A tactile raised line map shall be provided at the main entry points adjacent to the accessible path of travel but with enough space to ensure users do not block the path for others
  4. c) Path of travel from each sidewalk connects to an accessible entrance with few to no joints to avoid bumps. The primary paths shall be wide enough to allow two-way traffic with a clear width that allows two people using wheelchairs or guide dogs to pass each other. For secondary paths where a single path is used, passing spaces shall be provided at regular intervals and at all decision points. The height difference from the sidewalk to the entrance will not require a ramp or stairs. The path will provide drainage slopes only and ensure no puddles form on the path. Paths will be heated during winter months using heat from the school or other renewable energy sources.
  5. d) Bike parking shall be adjacent to the entry path. Riders shall be required to dismount and not ride on the pedestrian routes. Bike parking shall provide horizontal storage with enough space to ensure users and parked bikes do not block the path for others. The ground surface below the bikes shall be colour contrasted and textured to be distinct from the pedestrian path.
  6. e) Rest areas and benches with clear floor space for at least two assistive mobility devices or strollers or a mix of both shall be provided. Benches shall be colour contrasted, have back and arm rests and provide transfer seating options at both ends of the bench. These shall be provided every 30m along the path placed adjoining. The bench and space for assistive devices are not to block the path. If the path to the main entrance is less than 30m at least one rest area shall be provided along the route. If the drop-off area is in a different location than the pedestrian route from the sidewalk, an interior rest area shall be provided with clear sightlines to the drop-off area. If the drop-off area is more than 20m from the closest accessible entrance an exterior accessible heated shelter shall be provided for those awaiting pick-up. The ground surface below the rest areas shall be colour contrasted and textured to be distinct from the pedestrian path it abuts
  7. f) Tactile directional indicators shall be provided where large open paved areas happen along the route
  8. g) Accessible pedestrian directional signage at decision points
  9. h) Lighting levels shall be bright and even enough to avoid shadows and ensure it’s easy to see the features and to keep people safe.
  10. i) Accessible duress stations (Emergency safety zones in public spaces)
  11. j) Heated walkways shall be used where possible to ensure the path is always clear of snow and ice
  1. Access to the site for vehicles
  2. a) Clear, intuitive connection to the drop-off and accessible parking
  3. b) Passenger drop-off shall include space for driveway, layby, access aisle (painted with non slip paint), and a drop curb (to provide a smooth transition) for the full length of the drop off. This edge shall be identified and protected with high colour contrasted tactile attention indicators and bollards to stop cars, so people with vision loss or those not paying attention get a warning before walking into the car area. Sidewalk slopes shall provide drainage in all directions for the full length of the dropped curb
  4. c) Overhead protection shall be provided by a canopy that allows for a clearance for raised vans or buses and shall provide as much overhead protection as possible for people who may need more time to load or off-load
  5. d) Heated walkways from the drop-off and parking shall be used to ensure the path is always clear of snow and ice
  6. e) A tactile walking directional indicator path shall lead from the drop-off area to the closest accessible entrance to the building (typically the main entrance)
  7. f) A parking surface will only be steep enough to provide drainage in all directions. The drainage will be designed to prevent puddles from forming at the parking or along the pedestrian route from the parking
  8. g) Parking design should include potential expansion plans for future growth and/or to address increased need for accessible parking
  9. h) Parking access aisles shall connect to the sidewalk with a curb cut that leads to the closest accessible entrance to the building. (so that no one needs to travel along the driveway behind parked cars or in the path of car traffic)
  10. i) Lighting levels shall be bright and even enough to avoid shadows and to ensure it’s easy to see obstacles and to keep people safe.
  11. j) If there is more than one parking lot, each site shall have a distinctive colour and shape symbol associated with it that will be used on all directional signage especially along pedestrian routes.
  12. Parking
  13. a) The provision of parking spaces near the entrance to a facility is important to accommodate persons with a varying range of abilities as well as persons with limited mobility. Medical conditions, such as anemia, arthritis or heart conditions, using crutches or the physical act of pushing a wheelchair, all can make it difficult to travel long distances. Minimizing travel distances is particularly important outdoors, where weather conditions and ground surfaces can make travel difficult and hazardous.
  14. b) The sizes of accessible parking stalls are important. A person using a mobility aid such as a wheelchair requires a wider parking space to accommodate the manoeuvring of the wheelchair beside the car or van. A van may also require additional space to deploy a lift or ramp out the side or back door. An individual would require space for the deployment of the lift itself as well as additional space to manoeuvre on/off the lift.
  15. c) Heights of passage along the driving routes to accessible parking is a factor. Accessible vans may have a raised roof resulting in the need for additional overhead clearance. Alternatively, the floor of the van may be lowered, resulting in lower capacity to travel over for speed bumps and pavement slope transitions.
  16. d) Wherever possible, parking signs shall be located away from pedestrian routes, because they can constitute an overhead and/or protruding hazard. All parking signage shall be placed at the end of the parking space in a bollard barricade to stop cars, trucks or vans from parking over and blocking the sidewalk.
  1. A Building’s Exterior doors
  2. a) Level areas on both sides of a building’s exterior door shall allow the clear floor space for a large scooter or mobility device or several strollers to be at the door. Exterior surface slope shall only provide drainage away from the building.
  3. b) 100% of a building’s exterior doors will be accessible with level thresholds, colour contrast, accessible door hardware and in-door windows or side windows (where security allows) so those approaching the door can see if someone is on the other side of the door
  4. c) Main entry doors at the front of the building and the door closest to the parking lot (if not the same) to be obvious, prominent and will have automatic sliders with overhead sensors. Placing power door operator buttons correctly is difficult and often creates barriers especially within the vestibule
  5. d) Accessible security access for after hours or if used all day with 2-way video for those who are deaf and/or scrolling voice to text messaging
  6. e) All exit doors shall be accessible with a level threshold and clear floor space on either side of the door. The exterior shall include a paved accessible path leading away from the building

Accessible Design for Interior Building Elements – General Requirements Recommendations

The following should be required:

85. Entrances:

  1. a) All entrances used by staff and/or the public shall be accessible and comply with this section. In a retrofit situation where it is technically infeasible to make all staff and public entrances accessible, at least 50% of all staff and public entrances shall be accessible and comply with this section. In a retrofit situation where it is technically infeasible to make all public entrances accessible, the primary entrances used by staff and the public shall be accessible.

86. Door:

  1. a) Doors shall be sufficiently wide enough to accommodate stretchers, wheelchairs or assistive scooters, pushing strollers, or making a delivery
  2. b) Threshold at the door’s base shall be level to allow a trip free and wheel friendly passage.
  3. c) Heavy doors and those with auto closers shall provide automatic door openers.
  4. d) Room entrances shall have doors.
  5. e) Direction of door swing shall be chosen to enhance the usability and limit the hazard to others of the door opening.
  6. f) Sliding doors can be easier for some individuals to operate and can also require less wheelchair manoeuvring space.
  7. g) Doors that require two hands to operate will not be used.
  8. h) Revolving doors are not accessible.
  9. i) Full glass doors are not to be used as they represent a hazard.
  10. j) Colour-contrasting will be provided on door frames, door handles as well as the door edges.
  11. k) Door handles and locks will be operable by using a closed fist, and not require fine finger control, tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to operate

87. Gates, Turnstiles and Openings:

  1. a) Gates and turnstiles should be designed to accommodate the full range of users that may pass through them. Single-bar gates designed to be at a convenient waist height for ambulatory persons are at neck and face height for children and chest height for persons who use wheelchairs or scooters.
  2. b) Revolving turnstiles should not be used as they are a physical impossibility for a person in a wheelchair to negotiate. They are also difficult for persons using canes or crutches, or persons with poor balance.
  3. c) All controlled entry points will provide an accessible width to allow passage of wheelchairs, other mobility devices, strollers, walkers or delivery carts.

88. Windows, Glazed Screens and Sidelights

  1. a) Broad expanses of glass should not be used for walls, beside doors and as doors can be difficult to detect. This may be a particular concern to persons with vision loss/no vision. It is also possible for anyone to walk into a clear sheet of glazing especially if they are distracted or in a hurry.
  2. b) Windowsill heights and operating controls for opening windows or closing blinds should be accessible…located on a path of travel, with clear floor space, within reach of a shorter or seated user, colour contrasted and not require punching or twisting to operate.

89. Drinking Fountains

  1. a) Drinking fountain height should accommodate children and that of a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Potentially conflicting with this, the height should strive to attempt to accommodate individuals who have difficulty bending and who would require a higher fountain. Where feasible, this may require more than one fountain, at different heights. The operating system shall account for limited hand strength or dexterity. Fountains will be recessed, to avoid protruding into the path of travel. Angled recessed alcove designs allow more flexibility and require less precision by a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Providing accessible signage with a tactile attention indicator tile will help those who with vision loss to find the fountain.

90. Layout

  1. a) The main office where visitors and others need to report to upon entering the building shall always be located on the same level as the entrance, as close to the entrance as possible. If the path of travel to the office crosses a large open area, a tactile directional indicator path shall lead from the main entrance(s) to the office ID signage next to the office door.
  2. b) All classrooms and or public destinations shall be on the ground floor. Where this is not possible, at least 2 elevators should be provided to access all other levels. Where the building is long and spread out, travel distance to elevators should be considered to reduce extra time needed for students and staff or others who use the elevators instead of the stairs. If feature stairs (staircases included in whole or in part for design aesthetics) are included, elevators shall be co-located and just as prominent as the stairs
  3. c) Corridors should meet at 90-degree angles. Floor layouts from floor to floor should be consistent and predictable so the room number line up and are the same with the floors above and below along with the washrooms
  4. d) Multi-stall washrooms shall always place the women’s washroom on the right and the men’s washroom on the left. No labyrinth entrances shall be used. Universal washrooms shall be co-located immediately adjacent to the stall washrooms, in a location that is consistent and predictable throughout the building

91. Facilities

  1. a) The entry doors to each type of facility within a building should be accessible, colour contrasted, obvious and prominent and designed as part of the wayfinding system including accessible signage that is co-located with power door openers controls.
  2. b) Tactile attention indicator tile will be placed on the floor in front of the accessible ID signage at each room or facility type. Where a room or facility entrance is placed off of a large interior open area

Accessible Design for Interior Building Elements – Circulation Recommendations

The following should be required:

92. Elevators

  1. a) Elevator Doors will provide a clear width to allow a stretcher and larger mobility devices to get in and out
  2. b) Doors will have sensors so doors will auto open if the doorway is blocked
  3. c) Elevators will be installed in pairs so that when one is out of service for repair or maintenance, there is an alternative available.
  4. d) Elevators will be sized at allow at least two mobility device users and two non-mobility devices users to be in the elevator at the same time. This should also allow for a wide stretcher in case of emergency.
  5. e) Assistive listening will be available in each elevator to help make the audible announcements heard by those using hearing aids
  6. f) Emergency button on the elevator’s control panel will also provide 2-way communication with video and scrolling text and a keyboard for people who are deaf or who have other communication disabilities
  7. g) Inside the elevators will be additional horizontal buttons on the side wall in case there is not enough room for a person using a mobility aid to push the typical vertical buttons along the wall beside the door. If there are only two floors the elevator will only provide the door open, close and emergency call buttons and the elevator will automatically move to the floor it is not on.
  8. h) The words spoken in the elevator’s voice announcement of the floor will be the same as the braille and print floor markings, so the button shows 1 as a number, 1 in braille and the voice says first floor not G for Ground with M in braille and voice says first floor.)
  9. i) Ensure the star symbol for each elevator matches ground level appropriate to the elevator. The star symbol indicates the floor the elevator will return to in an emergency. This means users in the elevator will open closest to the available accessible exit. If the entrance on the north side is on the second floor, the star symbol in that elevator will be next to the button that says 2. If the entrance on the south side of the building is on the 1st floor, the star symbol will be next to the button that says 1.
  10. j) The voice on the elevator shall be set at a volume that is audible above typical noise levels while the elevator is in use, so that people on the elevator can easily hear the audible floor announcements.
  11. k) Lighting levels inside the elevator will match the lighting at the elevator lobbies. Lighting will be measured at the ground level
  12. l) Elevators will provide colour contrast between the floor and the walls inside the cab and between the frame of the door or the doors with the wall surrounding in the elevator lobbies. Vinyl peel and stick sheets or paint will be used to cover the shiny metal which creates glare. Vinyl sheets will be plain to ensure the door looks like a door, and not like advertising
  13. m) In a retrofit situation where adding 2 elevators is not technically possible without undue hardship, platform lifts may be considered. Elevators that are used by all facility users are preferred to platform lifts which tend to segregate persons with disabilities and which limit space at entrance and stair locations. Furthermore, independent access is often compromised by such platform lifts, because platform lifts are often requiring a key to operate. Whenever possible, integrated elevator access should be incorporated to avoid the use of lifts.

93. Ramps

  1. a) A properly designed ramp can provide wait-free access for those using wheelchairs or scooters, pushing strollers or moving packages on a trolley or those who are using sign language to communicate and don’t want to stop talking as they climb stairs.
  2. b) A ramp’s textured surfaces, edge protection and handrails all provide important safety features.
  3. c) On outdoor ramps, heated surfaces shall be provided to address the safety concerns associated with snow and ice.
  4. d) Ramps shall only be used where the height difference between levels is no more than 1m (4ft). Longer ramps take up too much space and are too tiring for many users. Where a height difference is more than 1m in height, elevators will be provided instead.
  5. e) Landings will be sized to allow a large mobility device or scooter to make a 360 degree turn and/or for two people with mobility assistive devices or guide dogs to pass
  6. f) Slopes inside the building will be no higher than is permitted for exterior ramps in the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act’s Design of Public Spaces Standard, to ensure usability without making the ramp too long.
  7. g) Curved ramps will not be used, because the cross slope at the turn is hard to navigate and a tipping hazard for many people.
  8. h) Colour and texture contrast will be provided to differentiate the full slope from any level landings. Tactile attention domes shall not be used at ramps, because they are meant only for stairs and for drop-off edges like at stages

94. Stairs

  1. a) Stairs that are comfortable for many adults may be challenging for children, seniors or persons of short stature.
  2. b) The leading edge of each step (aka nosing) shall not present tripping hazards, particularly to persons with prosthetic devices or those using canes and will have a bright colour contrast to the rest of the horizontal step surface.
  3. c) Each stair in a staircase will use the same height and depth, to avoid creating tripping hazards
  4. d) The rise between stairs will always be smooth, so that shoes will not catch on an abrupt edge causing a tripping hazard. These spaces will always be closed as open stairs create a tripping hazard.

The top of all stair entry points will have a tactile attention indicator surface, to ensure the drop-off is identified for those who are blind or distracted.

  1. e) Handrails will aid all users navigating stairways safely. Handrails will be provided on both sides of all stairs and will be provided at both the traditional height as well as a second lower rail for children or people who are shorter. These will be in a high colour contrasting colour and round in shape, without sharp edges or interruptions.

Accessible Design for Interior Building Elements – Washroom Facilities Recommendations

The following should be required:

95. General Washroom Requirements

  1. a) Washroom facilities will accommodate the range of people that will use the space. Although many persons with disabilities use toilet facilities independently, some may require assistance. Where the individual providing assistance is of the opposite gender then typical gender-specific washrooms are awkward, and so an individual washroom is required.
  2. b) Parents and caregivers with small children and strollers also benefit from a large, individual washroom with toilet and change facilities contained within the same space.
  3. c) Circumstances such as wet surfaces and the act of transferring between toilet and wheelchair or scooter can make toilet facilities accident-prone areas. An individual falling in a washroom with a door that swings inward could prevent his or her own rescuers from opening the door. Due to the risk of accidents, emergency call buttons are vital in all washrooms.
  4. d) The appropriate design of all features will ensure the usability and safety of all toilet facilities.
  5. e) The identification of washrooms will include pictograms for children or people who cannot read. All signage will include braille that translates the text on the print sign, and not only the room number.
  6. f) There are three types of washrooms. Single use accessible washrooms, single use universal washrooms, and multi-use stalled washrooms. The number and types of washrooms used in a facility will be determined by the number of users. There will always at least be one universal washroom on each floor.
  7. g) All washrooms will have doors with power door opening buttons. No door washrooms will be hard to identify for people who have vision loss.
  8. h) Stall washrooms accessible sized stalls – At least 2 accessible stalls shall be provided in each washroom to avoid long wait times. Schools with accessible education programs that include a large percentage of people with mobility disabilities should to have all stalls sized to accommodate a turn circle and the transfer space beside the toilet.
  9. i) All washrooms near rooms that will be used for public events shall include a baby change table that is accessible to all users, not placed inside a stall. It shall be colour contrasted with the surroundings and usable for those in a seated mobility device and or of shorter stature.
  10. j) At least one universal washroom will include an adult sized change table, with the washroom located near appropriate facilities in the school and any public event spaces. These are important for some adults with disabilities and for children with disabilities who are too large for the baby change tables. This helps prevent anyone from needing to be changed lying on a bathroom floor.
  11. k) Where shower stalls are provided, these shall include accessible sized stalls.
  12. l) Portable Toilets at Special Events shall all be accessible. At least one will include an adult sized change table.
  1. Washroom Stalls
  2. a) Size: Manoeuvrability of a wheelchair or scooter is the principal consideration in the design of an accessible stall. The increased size of the stall is required to ensure there is sufficient space to facilitate proper placement of a wheelchair or scooter to accommodate a person transferring transfer onto the toilet from their mobility device. There may also be instances where an individual requires assistance. Thus, the stall will have to accommodate a second person.
  3. b) Stall Door swings are normally outward for safety reasons and space considerations. However, this makes it difficult to close the door once inside. A handle mounted part way along the door makes it easier for someone inside the stall to close the door behind them.
  4. c) Minimum requirements for non-accessible toilet stalls are included to ensure that persons who do not use wheelchairs or scooters can be adequately accommodated within any toilet stall.
  5. d) Universal features include accessible hardware and a minimum stall width to accommodate persons of large stature or parents with small children.
  6. Toilets
  7. a) Automatic flush controls are preferred. If flushing mechanisms are not automated, flushing controls shall be on the transfer side of the toilet, with colour contrasted and lever style handles.
  8. b) Children sized toilets and accessible child sized toilets will be required in kindergarten areas either within the classroom or immediately adjacent to the facilities.
  9. Sinks
  10. a) Each accessible sink shall be on an accessible path of travel that other people, using other sinks or features (like hand-dryers), are not positioned to block.
  11. b) The sink, sink controls, soap dispenser and towel dispenser should all be at an accessible height and location and should all be automatic controls that do not require physical contact.
  12. c) While faucets with remote-eye technology may initially confuse some individuals, their ease of use is notable. Individuals with hand strength or dexterity difficulties can use lever-style handles.
  13. d) For an individual in a wheelchair and younger children, a lower counter height and clearance for knees under the counter are required.
  14. e) The insulating of hot water pipes shall be assured to protect the legs of an individual using a wheelchair. This is particularly important when a disability impairs sensation such that the individual would not sense that their legs were being burned.
  15. f) The combination of shallow sinks and higher water pressures can cause unacceptable splashing at lavatories.
  1. Urinals
  2. a) Each urinal needs to be on an accessible path of travel with clear floor space in front of each accessible urinal to provide the manoeuvring space for a mobility device.
  3. b) Urinal grab bars shall be provided to assist individuals rising from a seated position and others to steady themselves.
  4. c) Floor-mounted urinals accommodate children and persons of short stature as well as enabling easier access to drain personal care devices.
  5. d) Flush controls, where used, will be automatic preferred. Strong colour contrasts shall be provided between the urinal, the wall and the floor to assist persons with vision loss/no vision.
  6. e) In stall washrooms with Urinals, all urinals will be accessible with lower rim heights. For primary schools the urinal should be full height from floor to upper rim to accommodate children. Stalled washrooms with urinals will have an upper rim at the same height as typical non-accessible urinals to avoid the mess taller users can make. All urinals will provide vertical grab bars which are colour contrasted to the walls. Where dividers between urinals are used, the dividers will be colour contrasted to the walls as well.
  1. Showers
  2. a) Roll-in or curb less shower stalls shall be provided to eliminate the hazard of stepping over a threshold and are essential for persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs or other mobility devices in the shower.
  3. b) Grab bars and non-slip materials shall be included as safety measures that will support any individual.
  4. c) Colour contrasted hand-held shower head and a water-resistant folding bench shall be included to assist persons with disabilities. These are also convenient for others.
  5. d) Other equipment that has contrasting colour from the shower stall shall be included to assist individuals with vision loss/no vision.
  6. e) Shower floor drain locations will be located to avoid room flooding when they may get blocked
  7. f) Colour contrast will be provided between the floor and the walls in the shower to assist with wayfinding
  8. g) Shower curtains will be used for individual showers instead of doors as much as possible as it
  9. h) Where showers are provided in locker rooms each locker room will include at least one accessible shower, but an additional individual shower room will be provided immediately adjacent to allow for those with opposite sex attendants to assist them with the appropriate privacy.

Accessible Design for Interior Building Elements – Specific Room Requirements Recommendations

101. Performance stages

The following should be required:

  1. a) Elevated platforms, such as stage areas, speaker podiums, etc., shall be accessible to all.
  2. b) A clear accessible route will be provided along the same path of access for those who are not using mobility assistive devices as those who do. Lifts will not be used to access stage or raised platforms, unless the facility is retrofitting an existing stage and it is not technically possible to provide access by other means.
  3. c) The stage shall include safety features to assist persons with vision loss or those momentarily blinded by stage lights from falling off the edge of a raised stage, such as a colour contrasted raised lip along the edge of the stage.
  4. d) Lecterns shall be accessible with an adjustable height surface, knee space and accessible audio visual (AV) and information technology (IT) equipment. Lecterns shall have a microphone that is connected to an assistive listening system, such as a hearing loop. The office and/or presentation area will have assistive listening units available for those who may request them, for example people who are hard of hearing but not yet wearing hearing aids.
  5. e) Lighting shall be adjustable to allow for a minimum of lighting in the public seating area and backstage to allow those who need to move or leave with sufficient lighting at floor level to be safe

102. Sensory Rooms

The following should be required:

  1. a) Sensory rooms will be provided in a central location on each floor where there are classrooms or public meeting spaces
  2. b) They will be soundproof and identified with accessible signage
  3. c) The interior walls and floor will be darker in colour, but colour contrast will be used to distinctly differentiate the floor from the wall and the furniture
  4. d) Lighting will be provided on a dimmer to allow for the room to be darkened
  5. e) Weighted blankets will be available along with a variety of different seating options including beanbag chairs or bouncy seat balls
  6. f) They will provide a phone or other 2-way communication to call for assistance if needed

103. Offices, Work Areas, and Meeting Rooms

The following should be required:

  1. a) Offices providing services or programs to the public will be accessible to all, regardless of mobility or functional needs. Offices and related support areas shall be accessible to staff and visitors with disabilities.
  2. b) All people, but particularly those with hearing loss/persons who are hard-of-hearing, will benefit from having a quiet acoustic environment – background noise from mechanical equipment such as fans, shall be designed to be minimal. Telephone equipment that supports the needs of individuals with hearing and vision loss shall be available.
  3. c) The provision of assistive speaking devices is important for the range of individuals who may have difficulty with low vocal volume thus affecting production of normal audible levels of sound. Where offices and work areas and small meeting rooms do not have assistive listening, such as hearing loops permanently installed, portable assistive hearing loops shall be available at the office
  4. d) Tables and workstations shall provide the knee space requirements of an individual in a mobility assistive device. Adjustable height tables allow for a full range of user needs. Circulation areas shall accommodate the spatial needs of mobility equipment as large as scooters to ensure all areas and facilities in the space can be reached with appropriate manoeuvring and turning spaces.
  5. e) Natural coloured task lighting, such as that provided through halogen bulbs, shall be used wherever possible to facilitate use by all, especially persons with low vision.
  6. f) In locations where reflective glare may be problematic, such as large expanses of glass with reflective flooring, blinds that can be louvered upwards shall be provided. Controls for blinds shall be accessible to all and usable with a closed fist without pinching or twisting

104. Outdoor Athletic and Recreational Facilities

The following should be required:

  1. a) Areas for outdoor recreation, leisure and active sport participation shall be designed to be available to all members of the school community.
  2. b) Outdoor spaces will allow persons with a disability to be active participants, as well as spectators, volunteers and members of staff. Spaces will be accessible including boardwalks, trails and footbridges, pathways, parks, parkettes and playgrounds, parks, parkettes and playgrounds, grandstand and other viewing areas, and playing fields
  3. c) Assistive listening will be provided where game or other announcements will be made for all areas including the change room, player, coach and public areas.
  4. d) Noise cancelling headphones shall be available to those with sensory disabilities.
  5. e) Outdoor exercise equipment will include options for those with a variety of disabilities including those with temporary disabilities undergoing rehabilitation.
  6. f) Seating and like facilities shall be inclusive and allow for all members of a disabled sports team to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate anyone.
  7. g) Seating and facilities will be inclusive and allow for all members of a sports team of persons with disabilities to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate anyone.

105. Arenas, Halls and Other Indoor Recreational Facilities

The following should be required:

  1. a) Areas for recreation, leisure and active sport participation will be accessible to all members of the community.
  2. b) Assistive listening will be provided where game or other announcements will be made for all areas including the change room, player, coach and public areas.
  3. c) Noise cancelling headphones will be available to those with sensory disabilities.
  4. d) Access will be provided throughout outdoor facilities including to; playing fields and other sports facilities, all activity areas, outdoor trails, swimming areas, play spaces, lockers, dressing/change rooms and showers.
  5. e) Interior access will be provided to halls, arenas, and other sports facilities, including access to the site, all activity spaces, gymnasia, fitness facilities, lockers, dressing/change rooms and showers.
  6. f) Spaces will allow persons with disabilities to be active participants, as well as spectators, volunteers and members of staff.
  7. g) Indoor exercise equipment will include options for those with a variety of disabilities including those with temporary disabilities who are undergoing rehabilitation.
  8. h) Seating and facilities will be inclusive and allow for all members of a sports team of persons with disabilities to sit together in an integrated way that does not segregate or stigmatize anyone.

106. Swimming Pools

The following should be required:

  1. a) Primary considerations for accommodating persons who have mobility impairments include accessible change facilities and a means of access into the water. Ramped access into the water is preferred over lift access, as it promotes integration (everyone will use the ramp) and independence.
  2. b) Persons with low vision benefit from colour and textural surfaces that are detectable and safe for both bare feet or those wearing water shoes. These surfaces will be provided along primary routes of travel leading to access points such as pool access ladders and ramps.
  3. c) Tactile surface markings and other barriers will be provided at potentially dangerous locations, such as the edge of the pool, at steps into the pool and at railings.
  4. d) Floors will be slip resistant to help those who are unsteady on their feet and everyone even in wet conditions.

107. Cafeterias

The following should be required:

  1. a) Cafeteria serving lines and seating area designs shall reflect the lower sight lines, reduced reach, knee-space and manoeuvring requirements of a person using a wheelchair or scooter. Patrons using mobility devices may not be able to hold a tray or food items while supporting themselves on canes or while manoeuvring a wheelchair.
  2. b) If tray slides are provided, they will be designed to move trays with minimal effort.
  3. c) Food signage will be accessible.
  4. d) All areas where food is ordered and picked up will be designed to meet accessible service counter requirements
  5. e) Self serve food will be within the reach of people who are shorter or using seated mobility assistive devices
  6. f) Where trays are provided, a tray cart that can be attached to seated assistive mobility devices or a staff assistant solution that is readily available shall be available on demand, because carrying trays and pushing a chair or operating a motorized assistive device can be difficult or impossible.

108. Libraries

The following should be required:

  1. a) All service counters shall provide accessibility features
  2. b) Study carrels will accommodate the knee-space and armrest requirements of a person using a mobility device.
  3. c) Computer catalogues, carrels and workstations will be provided at a range of heights, to accommodate persons who are standing or sitting, as well as children of different ages and sizes.
  4. d) Workstations shall be equipped with assistive technology such as large displays, screen readers, to increase the accessibility of a library.
  5. e) Book drop-off slots shall be at different heights for standing and seated use with accessible signage, to enhance usability.

109. Teaching Spaces and Classrooms

The following should be required:

  1. a) Students, teachers and staff with disabilities will have accessibility to teaching and classroom facilities, including teaching computer labs.
  2. b) All teaching spaces and classrooms will provide power door operators and assistive listening systems such as hearing loops
  3. c) Additional considerations may be necessary for spaces and/or features specifically designated for use by students with disabilities, such as accessibility standard accommodations for complex personal care needs.
  4. d) Students, teachers and staff with disabilities will be accommodated in all teaching spaces throughout the school.
  5. e) This accessibility will include the ability to enter and move freely throughout the space, as well as to use the various built-in elements within (i.e. blackboards and/or whiteboards, switches, computer stations, sinks, etc.). Classroom and meeting rooms must be designed with enough room for people with mobility devices to comfortably move around.
  6. f) Individuals with disabilities frequently use learning aids and other assistive devices that require a power supply. Additional electrical outlets shall be provided throughout teaching spaces to -accommodate the use of such equipment.
  7. g) Except where it is impossible, fixtures, fittings, furniture and equipment will be specified for teaching spaces, which is usable by students, faculty, teaching assistants and staff with disabilities.
  8. h) Providing only one size of seating does not reflect the diversity of body types of our society. Offering seats with an increased width and weight capacity is helpful for persons of large stature. Seating with increased legroom will better suit individuals that are taller. Removable armrests can be helpful for persons of larger stature as well as individuals using wheelchairs that prefer to transfer to the seat.
  1. Laboratories will provide, in addition to the requirements for classrooms, additional accessibility considerations may be necessary for spaces and/or features in laboratories.

111. Waiting and Queuing Areas

The following should be required:

  1. a) Queuing areas for information, tickets or services will permit persons who use wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices as well as for persons with a varying range of user ability to easily move through the line safely.
  2. b) All lines shall be accessible.
  3. c) Waiting and queuing areas will provide space for mobility devices, such as wheelchairs and scooters.
  4. d) Queuing lines that turn corners or double back on themselves will provide adequate space to manoeuvre mobility devices.
  5. e) Handrails, not flexible guidelines, with high colour contrast will be provided along queuing lines, because they are a useful support for individuals and guidance for those with vision loss.
  6. f) Benches in waiting areas shall be provided for individuals who may have difficulty with standing for extended periods.
  7. g) Assistive listening systems will be provided, such as hearing loops, will be provided along with accessible signage indicating this service is available.

112. Information, Reception and Service Counters

The following should be required:

  1. a) All information, reception and service counters will be accessible to the full range of visitors. Where adjustable height furniture is not used, a choice of fixed counter heights will provide a range of options for a variety of persons. Lowered sections will serve children, persons of short stature and persons using mobility devices such as a wheelchair or scooter. The choice of heights will also extend to any speaking ports and writing surfaces.
  2. b) Counters will provide knee space under the counter to accommodate a person using a wheelchair or a scooter.
  3. c) The provision of assistive speaking and listening devices is important for the range of individuals who may have difficulty with low vocal volume thus affecting production of normal audible levels of sound. The space where people are speaking will have appropriate acoustic treatment to ensure the best possible conditions for communication. Both the public and staff sides of the counter will have good lighting for the faces to help facilitate lip reading.
  4. d) Colour contrast will be provided to delineate the public service counters and speaking ports for people with low vision.

Accessible Design for Interior Building Elements – Other Features Recommendations

113. Lockers

The following should be required:

  1. a) Lockers will be accessible with colour contrast and accessible signage
  2. b) In change rooms an accessible bench will be provided in close proximity to lockers.
  3. c) Lockers at lower heights serve the reach of children or a person using a wheelchair or scooter.
  4. d) The locker operating mechanisms will be at an appropriate height and operable by individuals with restrictions in hand dexterity (i.e. operable with a closed fist).

114. Storage, Shelving and Display Units

The following should be required:

  1. a) The heights of storage, shelving and display units will address a full range of vantage points including the lower sightlines of children or a person using a wheelchair or scooter. The lower heights also serve the lower reach of these individuals.
  2. b) Displays and storage along a path of travel that are too low can be problematic for individuals that have difficulty bending down or who are blind. If these protrude too much into the path of travel, each will protect people with the use of a trip free cane detectable guard.
  3. c) Appropriate lighting and colour contrast are particularly important for persons with vision loss.
  4. d) Signage provided will be accessible with braille, text, colour contrast and tactile features.

115. Public Address Systems

The following should be required:

  1. a) Public address systems will be designed to best accommodate all users, especially those that may be hard of hearing. They will be easy to hear above the ambient background noise of the environment with no distortion or feedback. Background noise or music will be minimized.
  2. b) Technology for visual equivalents of information being broadcast will be available for individuals with hearing loss/persons who are hard-of-hearing who may not hear an audible public address system.
  3. c) Classrooms, library, hallways, and other areas will have assistive listening equipment that is tied into the general public address system.

116. Emergency Exits, Fire Evacuation and Areas of Rescue Assistance

The following should be required:

116.1 In order to be accessible to all individuals, emergency exits will include the same accessibility features as other doors. The doors and routes will be marked in a way that is accessible to all individuals, including those who may have difficulty with literacy, such as children or persons speaking a different language.

116.2 Persons with vision loss/no vision will be provided a means to quickly locate exits – audio or talking signs could assist.

116.3 Areas of Rescue Assistance

  1. a) In the event of fire when elevators cannot be used, areas of rescue assistance shall be provided especially for anyone who has difficulty traversing sets of stairs.
  2. b) Areas of rescue assistance will be provided on all floors above or below the ground floor.
  3. c) Exit stairs will provide an area of rescue assistance on the landing with at least two spaces for people with mobility assistive devices sized to ensure those spaces do not block the exit route for those using the stairs.
  4. d) The number of spaces necessary on each floor that does not have a at grade exit should be sized by the number of people on each floor.
  5. e) Each area of refuge will provide a 2-way communication system with both 2-way video and audio to allow those using these spaces to communicate that they are waiting there and to communicate with fire safety services and or security.
  6. f) All signage associated with the area of rescue assistance will be accessible and include braille for all controls and information.

117. Other Features

The following should be required:

117.1 Space and Reach Requirements

  1. a) The dimensions and manoeuvring characteristics of wheelchairs, scooters and other mobility devices will allow for a full array of equipment that is used by individuals to access and use facilities, as well as the diverse range of user ability.

117.2 Ground and Floor Surfaces

  1. a) Irregular surfaces, such as cobblestones or pea-gravel finished concrete, shall be avoided because they are difficult for both walking and pushing a wheelchair. Slippery surfaces are to be avoided because they are hazardous to all individuals and especially hazardous for seniors and others who may not be sure-footed.
  2. b) Glare from polished floor surfaces is to be avoided because it can be uncomfortable for all users and can be a particular obstacle to persons with vision loss by obscuring important orientation and safety features. Pronounced colour contrast between walls and floor finishes are helpful for persons with vision loss, as are changes in colour/texture where a change in level or function occurs.
  3. c) Patterned floors should be avoided, as they can create visual confusion.
  4. d) Thick pile carpeting is to be avoided as it makes pushing a wheelchair very difficult. Small and uneven changes in floor level represent a further barrier to using a wheelchair and present a tripping hazard to ambulatory persons.
  5. e) Openings in any ground or floor surface such as grates or grilles are to be avoided because they can catch canes or wheelchair wheels.

118. Universal Design Practices beyond Typical Accessibility Requirements

The following should be required:

118.1 Areas of refuge should be provided even when a building has a sprinkler system.

118.2 No hangout steps* should ever be included in the building or facility.

* Hangout steps are a socializing area that is sometimes used for presentations. It looks similar to bleachers. Each seating level is further away from the front and higher up but here people sit on the floor rather than on seats. Each seating level is about as deep as four stairs and about 3 stairs high. There is typically a regular staircase provided on one side that leads from the front or stage area to the back at the top. The stairs allow ambulatory people access to all levels of the seating areas, but the only seating spaces for those who use mobility assistive devices are at the front or at the top at the back, but these are not integrated in any way with the other seating options.

118.3 There should never be “stramps”. A stramp is a staircase that someone has built a ramp running back and forth across. These create accessibility problems rather than solving them

118.4 Rest areas should be differentiated from walking surfaces or paths by texture- and colour-contrast

118.5 Keypads angled to be usable from both a standing and a seated position

118.6 Finishes

  1. a) No floor-to-ceiling mirrors
  2. b) Colour luminance contrast will be provided at least between:
  3. Floor to wall
  4. Door or door frame to wall

iii. Door hardware to door

  1. Controls to wall surfaces

118.7 Furniture – Arrange seating in square or round arrangement so all participants can see each other for those who are lip reading or using sign language

118.8 No sharp corners especially near turn circles or under surfaces where people will be sitting

119. Requirements for Public Playgrounds on or Adjacent to School Property

The following should be required:

119.1 Accessible path of travel from sidewalk and entry points to and throughout the play space. Tactile directional indicators would help as integrated path through large open spaces

119.2 Accessible controlled access routes into and out of the play space

119.3 Multiple ways to use and access play equipment

119.4 A mix of ground-level equipment integrated with elevated equipment accessible by a ramp or transfer platform

119.5 Where stairs are provided, ramps to same area

119.6 No overhead hazards

119.7 Ramp landings, elevated decks and other areas should provide sufficient turning space for mobility devices and include fun plan activities not just a view

119.8 Space to park wheelchairs and mobility devices beside transfer platforms

119.9 Space for a caregiver to sit beside a child on a slide or other play element

119.10 Provide elements that can be manipulated with limited exertion

119.11 Avoid recurring scraping or sharp clanging sounds such as the sound of dropping stones and gravel

119.12 Avoid shiny surfaces as they produce a glare

119.13 Colour luminance contrast will be provided at least at:

  1. a) Different spaces throughout the play area
  2. b) Differentiate the rise and run on steps. Include colour contrasting on the edge of each step
  3. c) Play space boundaries and areas where children should be cautious, such as around high traffic areas e.g. slide exits
  4. d) Entry to play areas with shorter doors to help avoid hitting heads
  5. e) Tactile edges where there is a level change like at the top of the stairs or at a drop-off
  6. f) Transfer platforms
  7. g) Railings and handrails contrasted to the supports to make them easier to find
  8. h) Tripping hazards should be avoided but if they exist, providing colour contrast, to improve safety for all. This is more likely in an older playground
  9. i) Safe zones around swings, slide exits and other play areas where people are moving, that might not be noticed when people are moving around the playground

119.14 Play Surfacing Materials Under Foot will be pour-in-place rubber surfacing that should be made of either

  1. a) Rubber Tile
  2. b) Engineered wood fiber
  3. c) Engineered carpet, artificial turf, and crushed rubber products
  4. d) Sand

119.15 Accessible Parking and Curbs, where provided, at least one clearly marked accessible space positioned as close as possible to the playground on a safe, accessible route to the play space

119.16 Accessible Signage

  1. a) Accessible signage and raised line map at each entrance to the park
  2. b) Provide large colour contrasted text, pictograms, braille
  3. c) provide signage at each play element with ID text and braille, marked with a Tactile attention paver to make it easier to find
  4. d) Identify the types of disability included at each play equipment/area

119.17 For Caregivers

  1. a) Junior and senior play equipment within easy viewing of each other
  2. b) Sitting areas that offer a clear line of sight to play areas and equipment
  3. c) Clear lines of sight throughout the play space
  4. d) Access to all play areas in order to provide assistance
  5. e) Sitting areas with back support, arm rests and shade
  6. f) Benches and other sitting areas should be placed on a firm stable area for people using assistive devices such as wheelchairs.

119.18 For Service Animals

  1. a) Nearby safe, shady places at rest area benches where service animals can wait with a caregiver with a clear view of their handlers when they are not assisting them
  2. b) Spaces where dogs can relive themselves – dog relief area with nearby garbage can

119.19 Tips for Swings

  1. a) Providing a safe boundary area around swings which is identified by surface material colour and texture
  2. b) Swings in a variety of sizes
  3. c) Accessible seat swings or basket swings that require transfer. If size and space allow provide two accessible swings for friends with disabilities to swing together

Platform swings eliminate the need to transfer should be integrated

119.20 Tips for Slides

  1. a) Double Slides (side by side) allow caregivers to accompany and, if needed, to offer support
  2. b) Slide exits should not be directed into busy play areas
  3. c) Transfer platforms at the base of slide exits
  4. d) Seating spaces with back support adjacent to the slide exit where children/caregivers can wait for their mobility device to be retrieved
  5. e) Metal versus Plastic Slides (Metal slides avoid static electricity which damaged cochlear implants, while sun exposure can leave metal slide hot, so shade devices are vital)
  6. f) Roller slides are usually gentler in slope and provide both a tactile and sliding experience or an Avalanche Inclusive Slide

Appendix 2: List of the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations to the Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee

  1. Wherever the Initial Report recommends the creation of a standard or the development of a policy or guideline, such a standard, policy or guideline should be mandatory and should be spelled out in detail in the Education Accessibility Standard, rather than delegating authority to create it to some organization or department.
  1. Wherever the Education Accessibility Standard will require colleges and universities to file a document or data with the Government, or to make public any document, report, or data, it should also require that these be submitted electronically to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario in an accessible format. The Standard should also require the Accessibility Directorate to make those documents, reports or data public on a publicly searchable database or hub.
  2. The Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee should endorse and echo the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Initial’ Report’s recommendations on enforcement of the AODA, with necessary changes to tailor them to the context of colleges and universities.
  1. The Initial Report should be revised to add that where the Education Accessibility Standard refers to “students with disabilities “, this should include any student who has any kind of disability, including, for example, any kind of physical, mental, sensory, learning, intellectual, mental health, communication, neurological, neurobehavioural or other kind of disability within the meaning of the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  2. The Standards Development Committee’s final report itself and not just the chair’s transmission letter should recommend that the Postsecondary Education Accessibility Standard apply to all other post-secondary educational contexts, such as privately funded colleges and universities and job training programs.
  3. The long term objective of the Post-Secondary Education Accessibility Standard should be to ensure that by 2025, post-secondary education in Ontario will be fully accessible and barrier-free for students with disabilities:
  1. By removing and preventing accessibility barriers impeding students with disabilities from fully participating in, being fully included in, and fully benefitting from all aspects of post-secondary education in Ontario, and
  2. By providing a prompt, accessible, fair, effective and user-friendly process for students with disabilities to learn about and seek programs, services, supports, accommodations and placements tailored to the individual strengths and needs of each student with disabilities.”
  3. Eliminating or substantially reducing the need for students with disabilities to have to fight against post-secondary education accessibility barriers, one at a time, and the need for post-secondary education organizations to have to re-invent the accessibility wheel one education program at a time.
  1. The Standards Development Committee Initial Report’s Recommendation 20-23 (training) should be amended to include training on the duties of post-secondary institutions to people with disabilities under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and especially s. 15 (equality rights).
  2. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 20-23 (Training) should be revised to either remove the statement that post-secondary institutions should not pay for disability accessibility/inclusion training, or to clarify that the Ontario Government should not charge a fee for providing such training to those obligated organizations.
  3.  The Initial Report’s Training recommendations, Recommendations 20 and following, should be revised to explicitly require training on the duty to accommodate students and employees with disabilities, and to direct that this training begin immediately, using resources that are now readily available for free.
  4.             “Recommendation 29: Facilities Management/Design/Construction staff” Should be amended to require that training of those responsible for facilities at post-secondary institutions and those who design such facilities should be required to include direct live training from people with disabilities who have suffered from post-secondary institutions’ built environment barriers, and should include video depictions of such barriers, such as the AODA Alliance’s videos available at https://youtu.be/4oe4xiKknt0 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgfrum7e-_0&t=87s
  5. The Initial Report’s Training recommendations 20 and following should be expanded to require up-to-date training on the creation of accessible digital content, such as in online posts and electronic documents, especially for course instructors and anyone else who creates digital content for use by students and others in the post-secondary community. This training should make it clear that if a document is posted or circulated in pdf, it must also be posted or circulated in MS Word and/or html.
  6.  The Initial Report’s Training recommendations 20 and following should be expanded to require that college or university staff involved in the procurement of any technology or equipment be required to be trained on technology accessibility needs and requirements.
  7. The Education Accessibility Standard should require that:
  1. Each post-secondary education organization should provide teaching coaches with expertise in universal design in learning and differential instruction to support instructional staff.
  2. The Ontario Government should create templates or models for the training of college and university instructors on universal design in learning and differential instruction, so that each post-secondary education organization does not have to reinvent the wheel in this context.
  1. The Initial Report’s recommendations on curriculum, assessment and instruction (Recommendations 31 and following) should be expanded
  1. to identify that a key systemic barrier is the fact that course instructors need not be able to teach, or to teach students with disabilities, to be hired, and to make recommendations for training existing instructor in this area, and
  2. to require such qualifications in the future for recruiting and promoting future faculty.
  1. The Initial Report, including recommendations such as Recommendation 38, should be revised to make it clear that whether or not the Ontario Government supplements their funding, they must fulfil their decades-old obligations to students with disabilities under the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Charter of Rights.
  2. To ensure that instructional materials are fully accessible on a timely basis to students with disabilities such as vision loss and those with learning disabilities that affect reading, each post-secondary education organization should:
  1. Promptly survey students with disabilities who need accessible instructional materials, and their instructional staff, to get their front-line experiences on whether they get timely access to accessible instructional materials, and to get specifics on where this has been most lacking.
  2. Establish a dedicated office or resource within the post-secondary education organization, or shared among post-secondary education organizations, to convert instructional materials to an accessible format, where needed, on a timely basis. A student should not be required to show proof that they own a hard copy of an item to be able to get it in an accessible format.
  3. The Education Accessibility Standard should require the Ontario Government to implement, monitor and publicly report on province-wide strategies to ensure the procurement of and use of accessible instructional materials across post-secondary education organizations.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 57 should be explained and clarified, or removed.
  2. Every post-secondary education organization should be required to review its admission criteria for gaining admission to any of its post-secondary education programs, to identify any barriers that would impede otherwise-qualified students with disabilities from admission, and shall adjust those criteria to either:
  1. Remove the admission criteria that constitute a barrier to admission, or
  2. Provide an alternative method for assessing students with disabilities for admission to the program.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 65 should be amended to provide that the Education Accessibility Standard, and not the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, should adopt clear and consistent definitions across the education sector for key terms relating to digital learning and technology.
  2. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 68 and following, regarding accessible technology, should be revised to:
  1. require that the Education Accessibility Standard itself set specific requirements for accessible technology, and
  2. require that each obligated organization submit its accessibility plan to the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario, which the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario would then be required to post online in a searchable accessible public online hub.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 76 should be revised to make it mandatory for each college and university to appoint an accessible digital technology lead.
  2. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 87 should be revised to eliminate “phase two”, which now provides:

“phase 2: postsecondary institutions shall provide suitable software and training for the creation of accessible PDFs to the PDF/UA 1 /ISO 14289 standard. Following this date, any document provided as a PDF must meet this international standard. However, to phase in this requirement it is expected that postsecondary institutions continue to publish PDF-based digital content to be as accessible as their training and applications permit, even if an accessible alternative is provided. This will lessen any remediation costs if there is a need to go back and ensure that currently produced PDFs meet the PDF/UA 1/ISO 14289 standard. This will also demonstrate the postsecondary institutions’ commitment and progress towards creating accessible PDFs.”

  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 88 should be removed.
  2. The Initial Report should be expanded to recommend that the Education Accessibility Standard will require each post-secondary education organization to ensure that its information technology support and help staff includes specialists in access technology, and that students with disabilities get prompt access to IT support when needed.
  3. The Initial Report should be revised to require that
  1. Only accessible conference and remote class platforms may be used.
  2. the Ontario Government should be required to report semi-annually to the public and to colleges and universities on the comparative accessibility of different virtual meeting and teaching platforms, so that colleges and universities do not have to repeat the same investigations.
  3. Even when classes are taught in person, students with disabilities should have the option of attending virtually via an accessible virtual meeting platform, where this accommodation would be helpful to them because of their disability.
  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to require that any learning management system only be procured and used if it is accessible, and for all its accessibility features to be locked in the “on” position so that they cannot be turned off.
  2. The Initial Report should be expanded to ban the use of inaccessible electronic kiosks, electronic point-of-sale devices and restaurant tablet ordering technology at any colleges and universities.
  3. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 91 (Access to Disability Accommodation Information) should be expanded to ensure that the Education Accessibility Standard requires:
  1. The post-secondary education organization’s interactive voice response system for receiving incoming phone calls should announce to all callers the organization’s commitment to accommodate students with disabilities and the number to press to get introductory information about how to seek such.
  2. Programming handouts and broadcast email communications to incoming students should include similar general information.
  3. the post-secondary education organization’s broadcast email announcements and other communications to the student population should include summary information to this effect with relevant links.
  4. Classroom instructors should make announcements in their first week of classes to this effect.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 92 should be revised to provide that the Education Accessibility Standard itself should set a clear set of barrier-free requirements regarding a student’s documenting an academic accommodation need. For example, a student should not be required to re-document their disability each year, where it is a permanent or long term disability.
  2. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 94 should be amended to explicitly require that colleges and universities tell students with disabilities, as soon as possible, about the institution’s duty to accommodate students with disabilities.
  3. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 94-95 be revised to set out specific accessibility requirements for colleges and universities in such areas as classrooms, libraries, common areas, online learning tools including accessible software, tests/examinations, internships, practica, co-ops, field placements, apprenticeships, work-integrated learning, other experiential learning that are part of their academic program of study, request for priority enrollment in a course, and accessible housing placement. For example, to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in a post-secondary education organization’s experiential learning programs, each such organization should:
  1. Review its experiential learning programs to identify and remove any accessibility barriers;
  2. Put in place a process to affirmatively reach out to potential placement organizations in order to ensure that a range of accessible placement opportunities in which students with disabilities can participate are available;
  3. Ensure that its partner organizations that accept students for experiential learning placements are effectively informed of their duty to accommodate the learning needs of students with disabilities;
  4. Create and share supports and advice for placement organizations who need assistance to ensure that students with disabilities can fully participate in their experiential learning placements;
  5. Monitor placement organizations to ensure they have someone in place to ensure that students with disabilities are effectively accommodated, and to ensure that effective accommodation was provided during each placement of a student with a disability who needed accommodation; and
  6. Survey students with disabilities and experiential learning placement organizations at the end of any experiential learning placements to see if their disability-related needs were effectively accommodated.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 94 and following should be revised to:
  1. Require obligated organizations to review their accommodation procedures for systemic barriers, such as a ban on recording classes to which an exception must be sought through the accommodation process; and
  2. Require that those disability barriers be removed and prevented.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 98 (Disability Accommodation Caseload – Reporting) be revised to require that each college or university disability accommodation caseloads be reported to The Government, with The Government being required to publish these online annually on an institution-by-institution basis, and as provincial aggregations or averages.
  2. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 99 (Accessibility Lens) be removed and replaced with specific recommendations on the recurring disability barriers to be removed and prevented, and what must be done to remove and prevent them.
  3. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 104-16 ((Accessible Procurement Policies and Procedures) should be revised to require that the accessible procurement standards are mandatory, include detailed specifics, are more robust than the current section 5 of the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation, and require public accountability/reporting to ensure that they can be effectively monitored and enforced.
  4. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 108-110 (Handling Accommodation Requests) should be expanded to spell out mandatory baseline requirements for student accommodation request procedures, so that each college or university does not have to re-design their own procedures, and which:
  1. Require the de-bureaucratizing of the handling of accommodation requests by students;
  2. Require a fast-track process for routine accommodation requests which are suitable for such a process;
  3. Require a separate track for more unusual or complex requests to be addressed in an effective and time-sensitive way; and
  4. Ensure that if the student had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) from an Ontario school, or a finding by an Ontario school board’s Identification and Placement Review Committee (IPRC) that identified them as having a disability (exceptionality), or a comparable form of documentation from another jurisdiction, then the post-secondary education organization should treat that as sufficient proof that the student has a disability, without requiring further assessments or proof, unless the post-secondary education organization has independent proof showing that the student no longer has that disability. In that case, the post-secondary education organization shall provide the student with that proof and shall provide the student with an opportunity to demonstrate that they have a disability-related accommodation need. The student’s IEP should not be treated as a ceiling on what a person can request, since a person’s accommodations needs may be different in the postsecondary environment.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 111-113 (Service Animals) should be revised to replace the term “service animals and support animals” with the more accurate term “service animals, including support animals.”
  2. Each post-secondary education organization should be required to establish a permanent committee of its governing board of directors or trustees to be called the “Accessibility Committee”. This Accessibility Committee should have responsibility and authority to oversee the organization’s compliance with the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and with the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as far as they guarantee the right of students with disabilities to fully participate in and fully benefit from the education programs and opportunities that the organization provides.
  3. The Standards Development Committee should recommend that any equity, diversity, and inclusion strategy at any college or university should be reviewed and, where needed, revised to ensure that disability is a full and equal target and focus of that strategy.
  4. Each post-secondary education organization should be required to establish a committee of those employees and volunteers with disabilities who wish to join, to give the organization’s senior management feedback on the barriers in the organization that could impede employees or students with disabilities.
  5. The Initial Report’s Recommendations 127-128 should be revised to recommend
  1. The adoption of the Education Accessibility Standards of the OCAD University Facility Accessibility Design Standards (FADS) https://www.ocadu.ca/sites/default/files/2021-06/OCADU_FADS_21-05-26.pdf enriched by the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee Initial Report’s built environment recommendations; and
  2. Set standards for accessibility of the furniture in the premises of colleges and universities.
  1. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 139 (Identify Barriers and Provide Accommodations) should be revised to remove an incorrect suggestion that zoning bylaws or heritage designation are a legal bar to implementing accessibility in a building.
  2. The Initial Report’s Recommendation 153 (Signage and Wayfinding) should be revised to:
  1. Invoke the OCAD University FADS standard for signage and way-finding, instead of those by Brock University; and
  2. Require that each campus review its indoor and outdoor property for effective cane-detectable way-finding, and institute such way-finding if inadequate or non-existent.
  1. The Initial Report’s recommendations regarding the built environment should be expanded to require that, where possible, a post-secondary education organization should not renovate an existing facility that lacks disability accessibility, unless the organization has a plan to also make that facility accessible. For example, a post-secondary education organization should not spend public money to renovate the second storey of a facility which is inaccessible, if the organization does not have a plan to make that second storey disability-accessible. Very pressing health and safety concerns should be the only reason for any exception to this.
  2. The Initial Report’s built environment recommendations should be expanded to require that each post-secondary education organization:
  1. Take inventory of the accessibility of its existing indoor and outdoor gym, sports, athletic and like equipment and spaces, and make this public, including posting this information online;
  2. Adopt a plan to remediate the accessibility of existing gym, sports, athletic or other like equipment or spaces, in consultation with students with disabilities; and
  3. Ensure that a qualified accessibility expert is engaged to ensure that the purchase of new equipment or remediation of existing equipment or spaces is properly conducted, with their advice being given directly to the post-secondary education organization.
  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to include, in its built environment recommendations, specific mandatory requirements at all colleges and universities to ensure that snow-shoveling creates no disability barriers and is sufficient to enable people with disabilities to navigate the campus.
  2. The Initial Report’s built environment recommendations should be expanded to include indoor air quality requirements for persons for whom this can create disability barriers.
  3. The Initial Report should be revised to require each college or university to create and make available an up-to-date guide on the accessibility features in its built environment, such as electric door openers and ramps.
  4. The Initial Report should be revised to:
  1. Ensure that students with disabilities have available an earlier or accelerated process for getting their course selections confirmed; and
  2. Have in place a mandatory process for the college or university to make priority re-assignment of any classes from inaccessible classrooms to accessible classrooms, where needed.
  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to require each college and university to:
  1. Ensure to the extent possible that construction projects on campus do not block accessible paths of travel, and accessibility features such as ramps and accessible doors; and
  2. Maintain a publicly-accessible up-to-date web page or other easily-accessed public announcement of the location and expected timing of construction projects that may impede accessible travel.
  1. The Initial Report should be expanded to specifically require that the venue of graduation ceremonies be accessible to students, family members, friends and staff members with disabilities, including the graduation platform.
  2. The Education Accessibility Standard require that the Ontario Government ensure that public funds are never used to create or perpetuate disability barriers in the built environment.
  3. The Ontario Government be required to revise its funding criteria for construction of facilities at a post-secondary education organization to ensure that it requires, and does not obstruct, the inclusion of all needed accessibility features in that construction project.



Source link

Disability Advocates Call on Ford Government Not to Endanger People with Disabilities and Others By Allowing Robots on Public Sidewalks


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Disability Advocates Call on Ford Government Not to Endanger People with Disabilities and Others By Allowing Robots on Public Sidewalks

October 20, 2021

            SUMMARY

Here we go again! The Ford Government is proposing to create even more new barriers against people with disabilities, contrary to the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the Ontario Human Rights Code.

Believe it or not, the Ford Government is now considering allowing the use of robots on public sidewalks. These could, for example, be used to deliver packages or shovel snow.

This threatens to create serious new disability barriers. These robots would present a danger to people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. We oppose them. So should you!

Below we set out an 8-page brief that we today sent to the Ford Government. It calls for robots to be banned from public and quasi-public places. We urge you to write the Ford Government. Support our strong opposition to robots on public sidewalks and other public places. Before the November 15, 2021 deadline we need as many individuals and community organizations to support us as possible. Write the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario by visiting its consultation web page at https://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/view_posting.jsp;jsessionid=Nq4_XYOtWlMmWONQbeqo87q?language=en&postingId=39087

You can also send feedback via an email to [email protected] and send your feedback directly to the public servant with a role in this consultation, by writing [email protected]

The Government is considering giving each municipality the option to allow robots. That would inflict on vulnerable Ontarians with disabilities the undue hardship of having to campaign in one municipality after the next, to protect our safety and accessibility. As our brief explains, the Ford Government did the same thing two years ago with electric scooters. We have suffered the hardship ever since, trying to battle corporate lobbyists who have pressured city councils to allow e-scooters, despite their serious proven danger to public safety and disability accessibility.

At the end of our 8-page brief, we set out the slide deck that the Ford Government presented at its October 18, 2021 virtual public consultation meeting on this topic. That slide deck states that it is confidential. We however never agreed to any such restrictions. If you read that slide deck, you’ll see there are no state secrets in it whatsoever!

As this is going on, there have now been a breath-taking 993 days since the Ford Government received the blistering Independent Review report by David Onley on the implementation and enforcement of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. That report concluded that Ontario is still full of “soul-crushing” barriers facing people with disability people with disabilities, and that progress towards becoming accessible has taken place at a “glacial” pace. The Ford Government has still not made public a comprehensive plan to implement that report’s findings and recommendations. The Government has staged some media events with the Accessibility Minister to make announcements, but little if anything new was ever announced.

There are just a little over three years till 2025. Yet Ontario lags far behind the goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. The Ford Government has announced no plan to get on schedule for that deadline.

Premier Ford, why don’t you leave these robots for the science fiction books, movies and TV shows where they belong, and keep them off our sidewalks!

Don’t Allow Robots on Public Sidewalks and In Other Public and Quasi- Public Places in Ontario

A Brief by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance www.aodaalliance.org

October 20, 2021

 1. The Bottom Line

This is the AODA Alliance’s written submission to the consultation by the Ontario Ministry of Transportation on the possibility of allowing robots, including autonomous robots, to be used in public and quasi-public spaces, e.g. to deliver packages and shovel snow. We Are strongly opposed to this. This cannot be solved by regulatory standards. Such robots must be banned from public or quasi-public places, with strong penalties that are effectively enforced. This ban should be enacted in provincial legislation, whose enactment is preceded by public hearings and  debates in the Legislature. The dangers that these robots pose cannot be effectively averted or minimized by permitting them in public places with regulations setting standards over their use or operations.

This brief does not take a position on the use of robots in private places to which the public is not customarily admitted, such as a factory or farm fields.

 2. Who Are We?

The AODA Alliance is a voluntary non-partisan coalition of individuals and organizations. Our mission is:

“To contribute to the achievement of a barrier-free Ontario for all persons with disabilities, by promoting and supporting the timely, effective, and comprehensive implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act.”

To learn about us, visit: https://www.aodaalliance.org.

Our coalition is the successor to the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee. The ODA Committee advocated more than ten years for the enactment of strong, effective disability accessibility legislation. Our coalition builds on the ODA Committee’s work. We draw our membership from the ODA Committee’s broad grassroots base. To learn about the ODA Committee’s history, visit: http://www.odacommittee.net.

We have been widely recognized by the Ontario Government, by all political parties in the Ontario Legislature, within the disability community and by the media, as a key voice leading the non-partisan campaign for accessibility in Ontario. In every provincial election since 2005, parties that made election commitments on accessibility did so in letters to the AODA Alliance.

Our efforts and expertise on accessibility for people with disabilities have been recognized in MPPs’ speeches on the floor of the Ontario Legislature, and beyond. Our website and Twitter feed are widely consulted as helpful sources of information on accessibility efforts in Ontario and elsewhere. We have achieved this as an unfunded volunteer community coalition.

Beyond our work at the provincial level in Ontario, over the past several years, the AODA Alliance has been active in advocating for strong and effective national accessibility legislation for Canada. Our efforts influenced the development of the Accessible Canada Act. We have been formally and informally consulted by the Federal Government and some federal opposition parties on this issue.

The AODA Alliance has also spoken to or been consulted by disability organizations, individuals, and governments from various parts of Canada on disability accessibility issues. We have also been consulted outside Canada on this topic, most particularly, in Israel and New Zealand.

3. The Danger

The Ontario Government is considering enacting regulations under the Highway Traffic Act to allow robots, whether autonomous or remotely driven, to use sidewalks in Ontario, to deliver products to customers. On October 18, 2021 the AODA Alliance took part in a Government consultation on a Government proposal that had been posted for public comment. Below we set out the text of the Ministry’s slide deck presented at its October 18, 2021 consultation.

The AODA Alliance strongly opposes any reform, whether permanent or by pilot project, that would allow autonomous or remotely driven robots to use public sidewalks or other public or quasi-public paths and places, including for such things as the purposes of delivering products to customers or shoveling snow. By “quasi-public places”, we include private property where the public is customarily admitted, such as stores and shopping plazas.

For the Government to allow these robots would be to knowingly create a substantial and worrisome new disability barrier impeding people with disabilities in their safe use of public sidewalks and other paths of travel. People with vision loss risk not knowing a robot is coming, or is in their path. They can pose a tripping hazard, or a danger of collision. For people with mobility limitations, including those who use mobility devices such as wheelchairs, they risk becoming a physical barrier in their path of travel, transforming an otherwise accessible route into an inaccessible one. For people with balance issues, they present a danger of losing balance from any inadvertent contact with a robot.

These barriers will be unpredictable, an unforeseeable in advance. People with disabilities cannot plan strategies to avoid them, short of simply staying home. These robots, by definition, will be on the move, not remaining permanently in any fixed location.

Sidewalks are an important publicly-funded public resource created for pedestrians to safely use. Their use should not be undermined for such things as private companies’ delivery robots.

Disability activists in jurisdictions that allow automated delivery robots to roam their sidewalks experience accessibility issues associated with these devices. Emily Ackerman, a PhD student at Pittsburgh University and a wheelchair user, found herself unable to access the curb cut due to an automated delivery robot blocking her way. This forced her to remain on the street as the traffic light turned green. The robot did not understand that it was time for him to cross the street as the pedestrian signal turned green. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-19/why-tech-needs-more-designers-with-disabilities

Roads are created as the place for vehicles to travel, including powered vehicles. As it is, public sidewalks and other paths of travel have far too many accessibility barriers. They are becoming increasingly cluttered with street furniture, art, signage, plants and other obstacles. We cannot afford any more barriers being added. These barriers include the lack of accessible curb cuts in too many places, trees, potted plants, sidewalk restaurant eating areas, and other clutter. In residential areas, this also includes weekly residents’ garbage bins awaiting pickup.

These will create a new disability barrier for a wide spectrum of people with disabilities, old and young. For those who have just acquired a disability, they will inflict added hardships. For example, for a senior who is just lost some or all of their vision, they will need to undergo rehabilitation orientation and mobility training on how to get around independently. The added burden of coping with these robots will make that challenge more difficult.

As a result of Ontario Government action led in this context by the Premier’s Office and the Ministry of Transportation, this situation has been made even worse in recent months and years. In 2019, the Ontario Government harmfully allowed municipalities to permit electric scooters, over the strong objection of the disability community.

The Ford Government acted at the behest of corporate lobbyists for the e-scooter rental companies. It knowingly created safety dangers for the public, including for people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. This has included creating a danger caused by e-scooters ridden on or parked on sidewalks. It has burdened people with disabilities to have to battle in one city after the next to avert this danger. They have had to battle against well-funded feeding frenzies by the e-scooter rental company corporate lobbyists. The new barriers that e-scooters have created for people with disabilities in Ontario are amply documented at www.aodaalliance.org/e-scooters

Making this even worse, during the COVID-19 pandemic, municipalities have understandably permitted restaurants to use some sidewalk space for outdoor public seating areas. Municipalities have not required that these new outdoor seating areas be barrier-free for people with disabilities, and that they not preclude accessible and safe pedestrian travel on the sidewalk to pass by the restaurant, for people with disabilities. This has had the effect of creating even more new barriers, forcing some to have to divert dangerously into the street in the face of oncoming traffic, just to get around a restaurant seating area that occupies the public sidewalk.

The marginalizing impact that such COVID-19 measures have on people with disabilities would be compounded by adding an additional layer of barriers to sidewalks in the shape of delivery robots. Haben Girma, an internationally acclaimed disability activist and lawyer, in an essay on accessibility issues created by delivery robots notes that, in the wake of the pandemic, “the last thing we need is cities adopting tech that excludes blind people and endangers pedestrians with mobility disabilities.” https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/11/the-robots-occupying-our-sidewalks/ .

The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires the Ontario Government to lead Ontario to become accessible by 2025. The Government-appointed 2019 Independent Review  of the AODA undertaken by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley found that Ontario is well behind schedule for reaching that goal. There are now just over three years left to get there. Ontario cannot afford to create any new disability barriers, like those that these robots would generate.

4. Enact Provincial Legislation and Do Not Address the Robots Issue by Mere Regulations Enacted Under the Highway Traffic Act

The Ontario Government is proposing to address this issue by enacting regulations under the Highway Traffic Act. We strongly recommend that instead, the Ontario Government should address this issue by introducing and publicly debating strong legislation into the Legislature to comprehensively deal with it. By passing legislation, the Legislature can deal comprehensively with it.

Only legislation can set requirements for public property, quasi-public property (such as shopping plazas) and private property. Regulations that the Government is contemplating under the Highway Traffic Act risk being far more limited in scope.

We realize that the Government may prefer the option of enacting regulations rather than bringing forward legislation, because Cabinet debates and decides what to do entirely in secret. However, for an issue that threatens public safety and disability accessibility, less secrecy and far more public accountability is required here. A very broad public consultation is needed, far more than the Ministry is now conducting.

It will be important for this ban to apply both to public property like sidewalks, and also to quasi-public private property, such as shopping plazas. A robot endangers the public in both such places. Legislation is the best if not the only effective tool for achieving this.

5. Ontario Government’s Stated Rationale for Wanting to Merely Regulate Robots is Wrong-Headed

At its October 18, 2021 consultation meeting, the Government explained why it is proposing to pass regulations that would permit use of these robots, while purporting to merely regulate some aspects of their use. The Government explained that right now there is no law governing these robots. They are being used in various parts of the province. It is a free-for-all. The Highway Traffic Act only gives the Government limited power to regulate them by way of regulations passed by Cabinet. As such, the Government is proposing to set minimum standards for their use where it can, and to give municipalities power to locally regulate them.

The fatal flaw in the Government’s reasoning is that it assumes that the only or best way to address this issue is by the Cabinet enacting mere regulations under the Highway Traffic Act. It disregards the option of the Legislature enacting legislation.

As noted above, legislation can ban the use of robots in any place, public, quasi-public or private, if the Legislature wishes. It can establish enforcement for that ban, such as the measures proposed in this brief.

The Government’s rationale is the same as the similarly erroneous arguments made by the corporate lobbyists for electric scooters. They claim that because people use them illegally, it is preferrable to legalize them and regulate them.

If these robots present a danger to the public’s health and accessibility, the proper public response is to ban then with effective enforcement, rather than legalizing them. By comparison, too many people now use dangerous drugs like crack cocaine. Current legal regimes do not prevent this. The solution is not to legalize crack cocaine.

6. No Way to Effectively Enforce Regulations Permitting Use of Robots in Public and Quasi-Public Places

If robots are permitted subject to Highway Traffic Act regulations or local bylaws, enforcing the law will be exceedingly difficult if someone is injured or endangered by a robot. The injured victim won’t know who to sue or prosecute for their injuries. Robots are not people with a legal duty to remain at the scene of an accident.

If a person is injured by a robot, and the robot keeps moving, the individual has no capacity to stop it and to try to identify its source. This is all the more so for a person with a disability such as a mobility impairment or vision loss.

Even if those barriers are overcome, there is still no way to know who has deployed the robot. A robot might have a company name on it. However, there is no assurance that this company name is accurate.

It is no solution to require the company name, if present, to be in braille. It is unreasonable to burden people with disabilities with having to find the robot, and then grope it to find a braille label. Braille labels cannot be read if the robot is moving. The very notion that a person with vision loss should try to chase down a robot in public that has injured or endangered them, with one hand on their white cane and guide dog, and their other hand flailing around to see if there is a braille label to read on the robot, illustrates the absurdity of this entire venture.

Moreover, many people with vision loss do not read braille. Most who lose their vision have this happen later in life.

The most effective enforcement would be to have a total ban on these robots in public and quasi-public places such as sidewalks, and to authorize their immediate confiscation and disposal. If police or members of the public encounter a robot in forbidden locations like a public sidewalk, they should be able to seize the robot and dispose of it. This would quickly and effectively put an end to the problem.

Ironically, under the Government’s proposal, a member of the public, endangered by a robot, risks prosecution for damaging private property if they disable a robot and dispose of it. However, the company endangering the public by sending out the robot into public places will for practical purposes face no risk of effective enforcement. The victims, and not the perpetrators, are the ones that the Government would leave at greatest legal risk.

It is unfair to burden a person suffering personal injury or property damage due to these robots to have to sue for damages. The costs and stresses of such litigation are substantial. People with disabilities traditionally have faced serious barriers in access to effective legal services, and barriers in the court system itself. Moreover, disproportionately, people with disabilities live at or near the poverty line. They thus cannot shoulder the costs of such litigation.

In addition, such a civil plaintiff would have the burden to prove who is responsible for their injuries. This presents all the monumental enforcement issues identified above, while dumping these hardships on private individuals with no public law enforcement and investigation powers. Add to this the possibility of a corporate defendant claiming that the fault lies with the robot’s designer, including software developers. Why should members of the public ever have to endure this?

7. No Effective Measures Available to Controvert These Dangers

The Ontario Government is asking if there are any measures it could enact to offset the safety and accessibility dangers that robots pose. The short answer is that there are none. Any effort by the Government to enact such is, as has been the case for electric scooters, doomed to fail.

 a) Requiring a Remote Driver Is No Solution

Autonomous robots present a huge danger to people with disabilities and others. These dangers are not eliminated or materially reduced if the law requires a robot to have a remote driver or monitor. There is no way for the public to enforce such a requirement. There is no way to know from looking at a robot, barreling towards you on the street or sidewalk, that there in fact is a remote driver somewhere, who is attentive to steering the robot.

If a company could even be identified as the robot’s source, there is no way for a prosecutor or plaintiff to affirmatively prove in court that there was no remote driver operating the robot. There is no way to know whether the robot is in fact operating autonomously some or all of the time, even if a remote driver or monitor exists.

If there were a remote driver, it is vital that they only be permitted to steer one robot at a time. There is no way to know if a remote driver is directing multiple robots at the same time, dangerously dividing their attention.

There are no prior standards for training a remote driver, akin to a driver’s education course for car-drivers. The simple fact that a human being is remotely involved does not ensure that they have the skills and knowledge needed to safely operate the robot.

There is a massive difference between having a driver in place in a motor vehicle on the one hand, and having a remote driver at some other location, on the other. The remote driver is not assured to have the same view as does a live driver on site in a vehicle. A live driver’s own safety is at stake if they get into a crash. A remote driver’s safety is never at risk from their remote driving of a robot.

There is no way to police whether the remote driver is paying attention and is not intoxicated or otherwise has reduced attention. Indeed, there is no way for the public to know if a remote driver is even in Ontario and hence within the reach of a police investigation, or is situated halfway around the world, far removed from the reach of Ontario law and the damage that their remote driving can cause.

 b) Speed Limits Are No Solution

Of course, the faster a robot goes, the greater is the damage it can inflict in a collision. Despite this, these dangers are not eliminated by speed limits imposed on robots. It is not possible to effectively enforce speed limits for robots. It would require police on every street, and sidewalk, equipped with hand-held radar for tracking their speed, constantly looking to see if a robot needs to be monitored. Especially in a society reeling from the added public and private costs of the COVID-19 pandemic, the enforcement costs would hardly be a societal priority, just so some mega-companies like Amazon can deliver their products without using delivery people.

Moreover, the dangers that these robots pose is not limited to the times when they are moving. When not moving, they are another form of unexpected sidewalk clutter that can be a tripping hazard for people with vision loss, and a barrier to mobility for people using mobility devices.

If a speed limit were to be set, it would need to be so slow that it would likely defeat the purpose of using robots. For example, if the speed were 3 KPH, businesses like Amazon will no doubt find that delivery people can get packages delivered more quickly by using human delivery people.

 c) Robots Emitting Sound Helps But Is No Solution

One option being considered is to require that the robot emit a beeping or other audible sound. This could alert some people to the robot’s presence. While this might help a little, it is also not an effective solution.

To be effective, there would have to be a universal sound, and a massive public education campaign to ensure that the entire public, including tourists from elsewhere, know that this is the sound of a robot.

Moreover, the audible alert must be ongoing, and not only when the robot approaches a person. It must be loud enough to be heard amidst city noises like traffic, construction, cars or restaurants blaring music, lawn mowers, etc. If not, a person might not be able to hear the robot sound, to localize its location and to know it is a robot.

 d) How Does a Robot Get Insurance?

Whenever a motorized vehicle is permitted to operate in public, decades of wise public policy requires that the vehicle be licensed and insured. One of the dangers arising from electric scooters arises from the fact that the Ontario Government wrongly departed from that basic public protection, for no valid public policy (except for the enrichment of e-scooter rental companies).

This rases the question whether the province can effectively require that robots be insured. There is likely no robot insurance available. Moreover, there is no way for a member of the public or law enforcement official to ask a robot to produce its insurance policy for verification.

 e) No National Safety Standards For Robots

Normally, motorized vehicles are not permitted on the road or other public places unless they have been tested and certified as meeting national safety standards. The Ontario Government has already endangered the public by not requiring this for electric scooters. It would make this even worse by not doing so for robots operating in public or quasi-public places.

As a first step, sufficient national safety standards would be needed. We are aware of none.

Such standards could include the permissible size, weight and shape of these robots. Just the shape alone of these robots is important. The severity of the injury they cause could be exacerbated by the shape, weight and size of the robot. If the robot is travelling at a higher speed, it gives people less time to become aware of their approach and to get out of the way. If the robot has sharp, hard edges and corners, not padded and rounded corners, they can inflict more damage. The heavier they are, the more damage they might inflict.

National standards could set requirements for permissible speeds, and for mandatory features to be included in the robots. They could set minimum requirements for a robot to be tested before its public use, including the tests that must be run. Whenever new software is added, they could add requirements for further testing before the robot might resume operation. We all know how new software can include bugs.

8. Snow-Shoveling robots Create Additional Dangers

One use for these robots would be for shoveling snow, e.g., on sidewalks. This presents additional dangers beyond other uses of robots on public sidewalks.

A recurring problem now facing people with disabilities during snowy periods is where snow is shoveled off a road or sidewalk, but piled up in another path of travel, such as a walkway from a house to the roadside. This results in new disability barriers being created that can make a hitherto accessible path inaccessible.

It must be a human being to be the one doing the snow shoveling, so that they can make sure this does not happen. Robots are less likely to avert the creation of these snow barriers.

9. Robots Can Also Damage Private Property

The foregoing addresses the risk of danger to people posed by robots. They also can damage a person’s property. This in turn would shift an unfair burden to those suffering property damage to have to prove who is at fault, and the value of the loss. If the person is not present when the damage is caused, this will be impossible to do. If the person has vision loss, they will likely not be able to provide the necessary information to prove the claim.

10. Leaving Approval of Robot Use to Each Municipality Creates Undue Hardship for People with Disabilities

The Ontario Government is considering giving each municipality the power to set local requirements for robot use and/or power to decide if robots will be permitted. This would create a huge undue hardship for people with disabilities and others.

This would shift to people with disabilities and charitable community organizations the massive burden to have to battle against approval of robots, one municipality at a time. The Government inflicted this on the disability community two years ago, when it gave each municipality the power to allow e-scooters. Since then, people with disabilities have had to battle in one city after the next to prevent the danger posed by e-scooters. As noted earlier, we have unfairly been pitted against e-scooter rental companies’ corporate lobbyists waging a well-funded lobbying campaign. In Toronto, we succeeded. In Ottawa, the corporate lobbyists succeeded. This has burdened our community with hours and hours of work, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. People with disabilities in Ottawa have already suffered from e-scooters left in public places and ridden in public.

This ordeal should not be replicated in the context of these robots. It wastes a great deal of time, and resources of municipal planning and policy officials. They already have many pressing issues on their plates.

11. Don’t Run a “Pilot” Project with Robots, Burdening People with Disabilities and Others to File Complaints

It is similarly wrong to authorize pilot projects with robots. It is wrong to experiment on non-consenting members of the public, as guinea pigs who will be subjected to this danger to their safety and accessibility. People are only supposed to be subjected to a human experiment if they consent to being involved in it.

Moreover, as the experience with e-scooters has shown, it is wrong to create this new danger, and then to shift the burden to the public to lodge complaints if they experience a problem. People have lots to do, without having this downloaded onto them without their agreement. Many won’t even know they can report problems, or to whom they should report.

 Appendix October 18, 2021 Ministry of Transportation Ontario Slide Deck for Public Consultation

MTO AV Program Enhancements 2021 Accessibility Seniors

Contents

Slide 1. 1

Slide 2. 1

Slide 3. 2

Slide 4. 3

Slide 5. 3

Slide 6. 4

Slide 7. 5

Slide 8. 6

Slide 9. 7

Slide 10. 7

Slide 11. 8

Slide 12. 9

Slide 13. 10

Slide 14. 11

Slide 15. 12

Slide 16. 13

Slide 17. 14

Slide 18. 14

 

Slide 1

Header: Ministry of Transportation

Title: Automated Vehicle Pilot Program

Consultations on Proposed Enhancements to the Pilot Program

October 2021

Slide 2

Title: Purpose of Consultations

Purpose of the proposals are to:

  • Reduce burden for Ontario businesses and other entities seeking to test automated vehicles (AV), while protecting road safety.
  • Facilitate innovation in connected and automated vehicle development and remain technology neutral, while protecting road safety.
  • Align Ontario’s Manufacturer Plate (M-Plate) and AV Pilot programs.

Purpose of the consultations are to:

  • Seek participant input on the impact to stakeholders, concerns on road safety and any accessibility issues.

Footer: Note: the deck is confidential, for discussion purposes only. Do not distribute.

Slide 3

Title: Context: Automated Vehicle (AV) Pilot

  • January 1, 2016: Ontario launched a pilot project to allow for the testing of automated vehicles (AVs) on public roads under certain conditions. Goals: establish rules, monitor industry developments, and evaluate the safety of AVs prior to them becoming widely available to the public.
  • January 1, 2019: In response to advances in AV technology, to ensure economic competitiveness, and in cooperation with key industry and road safety stakeholders, the province made enhancements to the AV Pilot program to:
    • Permit driverless testing under stringent conditions to ensure safety
    • Permit testing of connected “platooning” technology under stringent conditions to ensure safety, in which large trucks are able to travel closely together while tethered electronically, towards greater efficiencies, and
    • Permit the use of conditionally automated vehicles (specifically, Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Level 3 AVs) by Ontario consumers.

Slide 4

Title: Proposals

Connected and automated vehicle (CV/AV) technology is rapidly evolving and new opportunities have emerged. As such, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) is exploring the following changes:

  • Proposal 1: Expand eligible entities for the AV Pilot
  • Proposal 2: Remove restrictions on modification or manufacture of automated vehicles by pilot participants
  • Proposal 3: Expand Manufacturer Plate Program eligibility to include approved AV Pilot participants
  • Proposal 4: Expand Manufacturer Plate Program to allow carrying freight/goods and charging a fee
  • Proposal 5: Add emerging types of AVs to the AV Pilot – automated farm vehicles only at this time
  • Proposal 6: Develop a pilot framework for the testing of automated micro-utility devices

Slide 5

Title: 1: Expand eligible entities for the AV Pilot

Current Status:

  • Eligibility for the AV Pilot is restricted to certain entities, such as: original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), technology companies, component and systems manufacturers, and academic and research institutions.
  • A non-eligible entity seeking to conduct AV testing may still engage in testing by partnering with an eligible entity. However, the eligible entity must be the applicant to the pilot and own the vehicle to be tested.

Proposal:

  • Remove regulatory restrictions and permit eligible entities that can demonstrate that they are able to meet all requirements entry to the pilot.
  • This could expand eligibility for participation in the pilot to, for example but not limited to, ineligible entities such as municipalities, indigenous groups, corporations, transit companies etc.
  • Any applicant must still satisfy all the requirements of the pilot program before they may be approved.

Slide 6

Title: 2: Remove restrictions on modifications of AVs by pilot participants

Current Status:

  • If a vehicle is originally manufactured as a Society of Automotive Engineer (SAE) Level 4 or 5 AV, only the OEM is eligible to modify and test the vehicle under the current AV Pilot framework. Other eligible entities for the AV Pilot are only able to test vehicles that they converted into AVs (SAE Level 3, 4 or 5) and must be responsible for the conversion.

Proposal:

  • Remove regulatory restrictions on the modification of vehicles by participants within the AV Pilot Framework. This would allow all eligible entities participating in the program to modify originally manufactured automated vehicles.

Footer: Please refer to Appendix for details on SAE Levels.

Slide 7

Title: Discussion Questions for Proposals 1 and 2

  1. What level of support would your organization have for these policy proposals? Why?
  2. Does your organization have any concerns with these policy proposals?
    1. Should the expansion be limited to only certain entities?
    2. Should the vehicle manufacturer/converter have continued involvement? If so, what?
    3. Should conditions be placed on any entities? If so, what?
  3. What impacts would these policy proposals have on your organization or the population your organization serves?
  4. Are there any alternatives which your organization would like to suggest?

Slide 8

Title: 3: Expand M-Plate Program eligibility to include approved AV Pilot participants

Current Status:

  • The Manufacturer Plate (M-Plate) Program allows for motor vehicles and motor vehicle component manufacturers to operate non-compliant vehicles on Ontario roads for the purposes of testing, demonstration, evaluation and exhibition.
  • The M-Plate Program is currently restricted to motor vehicle and component manufacturers, which is inconsistent with the eligibility of the AV Pilot.
  • Vehicles manufactured and equipped by the following parties are permitted in the AV Pilot:
    • Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs)
    • Technology Companies
    • Academic/Research Institutions
    • Component and Systems Manufacturers

Proposal:

  • Expand the M-Plate Program to allow all entities eligible for the AV Pilot to test compliant and non-compliant Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) vehicles (e.g. driverless shuttles) on Ontario roads.
  • Applicants would need to be approved into the AV Pilot prior to applying for the M-Plate program. The programs have separate application forms and approval.

Slide 9

Title: 4: Expand M-Plate Program to allow carrying freight/goods and charging a fee

Current Status:

  • Under the M-Plate Program, participants are not permitted to carry freight/goods and to charge a fee.

Proposal:

  • Expand the M-Plate Program to allow approved AV Pilot participants using vehicles with an M-Plate to carry freight/goods, and to charge a fee.

Footer: Please refer to the appendix for further details on the Manufacturer Plate Program.

Slide 10

Title: Discussion Questions for Proposals 3 and 4

  1. What level of support would your organization have for these policy proposals? Why?
  2. Does your organization have any concerns with these policy proposals?
    1. Should there be restrictions on the M-Plate, such as limiting the number of plates that can be purchased to the number of AV vehicles to be tested?
    2. Should Ontario consider a new plate for AV Pilot participants?
    3. What restrictions, if any, should be placed on allowance to carry freight/goods and charging a fee (e.g. amount or type of goods, whether the entity should be able to make a profit etc.)?
  3. What impacts would these policy proposals have on your organization or population your organization serves?
  4. Are there any alternatives which your organization would like to suggest?

Slide 11

Title: 5: Add emerging types of AVs to the AV Pilot Program

Current Status:

  • The current regulatory framework does not capture automated farm vehicles as farm vehicles are not considered motor vehicles.

Proposal:

  • Allow for the testing of automated farm vehicles on public roadways, excluding 400-series highways
  • Current rules of the road for farm equipment continues to apply
  • Applicant would still need to satisfy all requirements of the AV Pilot Program before they can be approved
  • Most current rules for AV Pilot participation applies
  • Current driverless conditions in the AV Pilot continues to apply if it is a driverless vehicle
  • Some proposed differences:
    • Simpler data requirements
    • No transportation of hazardous goods, passengers or livestock
    • Platooning allowed (vehicles to travel close together to reap fuel efficiencies)

Slide 12

Title: 6: Develop a pilot framework for the testing of automated or remote-controlled micro-utility devices (MUDs)

Current Status:

  • The province does not currently have a regulatory framework in place governing automated or remote-controlled MUDs such as automated personal delivery devices or automated snow plows.

Proposal:

  • Create a new 10-year pilot regulation for micro-utility devices leveraging the pilot authority of section 228 of the Highway Traffic Act.
  • Will include micro-utility devices (MUDs) that:
    • May not qualify as motor vehicles under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and will not be defined as a motor vehicle in Ontario due to its small dimensions and low operating speeds
    • May operate primarily off-road in spaces such as private property, sidewalks, trails, or shoulders of roads
    • Are not meant for the transport of passengers, and
    • Are task oriented and may be operated or modified primarily to provide services such as snow plowing, goods delivery, sidewalk inspections, waste collection etc.
  • Specialized MUD stream for automated sidewalk snow plows due to the need for their larger size/weight.

Slide 13

Title: 6: Proposed general MUDs framework

Size: Equal to or less than L120cm x W74cm, 125kg

Weight and speed proposals: Maximum speed – 10 km/h in pedestrian spaces, 20 km/h on shoulders or

  • Different speed limits for devices in different weight classes
    • g. 10 km/h speed limit for devices 125kg and less
    • 5 km/h speed limit for devices between 125kg and 250kg

Approval and Oversight: Municipal opt-in with authority to limit operations (e.g. where and when)

  • Mandatory operator oversight capable of creating safe stop

Operational requirements:

  • Yield to pedestrians
  • Display name and contact and unique device number on device
  • Collision reporting
  • Good working order requirement and secure loads requirement

Slide 14

Title: 6: Proposed MUDs framework continued

General safety requirements:

  • Audible alerts – either within proximity alert, or always on directional white noise
  • Lighting in low light settings, reflectors on sides
  • Prohibit carrying of dangerous goods and controlled substances requiring federal placard
  • General liability insurance of $5 million
  • Braking system that allows device to come to a controlled safe stop (i.e. pulled to one side, not blocking passage)
  • Follow pedestrian rules

Automated or remote-controlled sidewalk snow plows: follows general MUDs framework except:

  • No maximum weight or dimension restrictions
  • Maximum 10 km/h on sidewalks
  • Requires, in addition to all other safety requirements, emergency stop buttons that are easily accessible
  • Flashing blue light

Slide 15

Title: Discussion Questions for Proposals 5 and 6

  1. What level of support would your organization have for these policy proposals? Why?
  2. Does your organization have any concerns with these policy proposals?
    1. Do you agree with the proposed dimension and weight limits?
    2. Which speed limit option would fit your target population’s needs best?
    3. What type of audible alert would best fit your needs? What proximity should trigger the audible alert?
    4. Are there other safety considerations?
  3. What impacts would these policy proposals have on your organization or population your organization serves?
  4. Are there any alternatives which your organization would like to suggest or other emerging vehicles that should be considered in the future?

Slide 16

Title: Next Steps

  • Feedback received will be used to inform further policy development.
  • Stakeholders and the public will have further opportunity to provide direct comment on the proposals through the Regulatory and Environmental Registries.
  • If you have further comments or questions, please reach out to:

Janet Lee – Senior Policy Advisor

Road Safety Program Development Office

Ministry of Transportation of Ontario

T: (416) 562-7497

E: [email protected]

Slide 17

Title: Appendix: Manufacturer Plate (M-Plate) Program

  • January 1, 2016: Ontario introduced an M-Plate program.
  • The M-Plate Program allows motor vehicle and motor vehicle component manufacturers to operate vehicles on Ontario roads for the purposes of testing, demonstration, evaluation and exhibition.
  • To be authorized to purchase an M-Plate, motor vehicle or component manufacturers are required to complete and submit an application form to the ministry.
  • Once approved, the ministry issues the applicant a letter to authorize the purchase and use of M-Plates.
  • The M-Plate is eligible for use on a passenger vehicle, commercial vehicle, bus and a motorcycle.

Slide 18

Title: Appendix: Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Levels of Automation description

To summarize SAE Levels:

Zero to two – the driver is driving and must constantly supervise any vehicle features that support the driver.

Three – the driver is not driving when the automated driving features are engaged, but when the feature requests, you must be ready to take over and drive.

Four and five – the person in the vehicle is not driving when the automated driving features are engaged. These automated driving features will not require you to take over driving.

Footer: For more information, please visit the SAE website at: SAE Levels of Driving Automation™ Refined for Clarity and International Audience



Source link

After Winning the Battle in Toronto Last Spring, AODA Alliance and Other Disability Advocates Now Call on London City Council Not to Endanger People with Disabilities, Seniors and Others by Allowing Electric Scooters


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

After Winning the Battle in Toronto Last Spring, AODA Alliance and Other Disability Advocates Now Call on London City Council Not to Endanger People with Disabilities, Seniors and Others by Allowing Electric Scooters

August 30, 2021

        SUMMARY

Will it ever end? Now It’s London Ontario that is considering the possibility of legalizing electric scooters (e-scooters). Due to the Ford Government, we must fight this battle in one city after the next. It was the Ford Government that gave municipalities the power to allow e-scooters. Premier Ford ignored all disability concerns and acted instead at the behest of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

With this issue now rearing its ugly head in London Ontario, the AODA Alliance and other disability advocates are now hitting the ground running, in an effort to avert this danger to people with disabilities, seniors, children and others who live in or visit London. On Tuesday, August 31, 2021 at noon, this issue is an agenda item on the City of London’s Civic Works Committee. The AODA Alliance is one of the disability organizations that have sent in written submissions to that Committee, asking London to say no to e-scooters. The AODA Alliance’s August 27, 2021 brief to the London Civic Works Committee is set out below.

We understand that London’s Accessibility Advisory Committee has commendably recommended that London say no to e-scooters. Earlier this year, the AODA Alliance and several other disability organizations and advocates convinced the Toronto City Council to unanimously say no to e-scooters. We are now trying to convince London to do the same thing, without burdening people with disabilities with the hardship of having to mount another hard-fought campaign to protect our safety and accessibility. We need London City Council to stand up for people with disabilities, seniors and others, and to stand up to the e-scooter rental companies’ corporate lobbyists.

We have asked London’s Civic Works Committee to allow for a deputation by the AODA Alliance at its August 31, 2021 meeting. We understand that no final votes on the e-scooters issue are expected at that meeting.

You can watch the August 31, 2021 London Civic Works Committee meeting live-streamed on Youtube on the City of London’s Youtube stream at this link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmRugRQ2sUo

For more details on the battle that people with disabilities have fought in Ontario over the past two years to avert the danger that e-scooters pose for them, visit the AODA Alliance website’s e-scooter page.

Riding Electric Scooters in London is Dangerous and Must Remain Banned — AODA Alliance brief to the City of London Civic Works Committee

August 27, 2021

Via email: [email protected]

On its agenda for its August 31, 2021 meeting, the Civic Works Committee of London City Council has an agenda item regarding the possibility of allowing electric scooters (e-scooters) in the City of London. The AODA Alliance submits this brief to London’s Civic Works Committee on that agenda item, and requests an opportunity to make a presentation or deputation at that meeting via whatever virtual platform is being used.

In summary, London City Council must not unleash dangerous e-scooters in London. Riding e-scooters in public places in London is now banned and remains banned unless City Council legalizes them.

The non-partisan AODA Alliance has played a leading role in raising serious disability safety and accessibility concerns with e-scooters. To learn more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts to protect people with disabilities and others from the dangers that e-scooters pose, visit its e-scooters web page.

The AODA Alliance strongly commends the London Accessibility Advisory Committee for recommending that e-scooters should not be allowed in London. The AODA Alliance asks the City of London Civic Works Committee to follow that advice, and to recommend the following:

  1. London should not permit the use of e-scooters, and should not conduct a pilot project with e-scooters.
  1. If the City of London is going to explore the possibility of allowing e-scooters, e-scooters should not be permitted if they present any risk to the health or safety of people with disabilities, seniors, children or others, or if they are prone to create new accessibility barriers that would impede people with disabilities within London.
  1. At the very least, if this issue is not simply taken right off the table, before proceeding any further, City staff should investigate the dangers that e-scooters pose for people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. A public consultation on that issue should be held, beyond a purely online digital survey form.

London should benefit from the extensive and commendable work done on this issue in Toronto. This past spring, Toronto City Council voted unanimously not to allow e-scooters, after very extensive consideration of the issue. Toronto City Staff undertook the most thorough investigation of this issue of any Ontario municipality, as far as we have been able to discover.

An initial July 2020 Toronto City Staff Report, supplemented by a second February 2021 Toronto City Staff report, together amply show that e-scooters endanger public safety in communities that have permitted them. Riders and innocent pedestrians get seriously injured or killed. They especially endanger seniors and people with disabilities. Blind people cannot detect silent e-scooters that can accelerate at them at over 20 KPH, driven by unlicensed, untrained, uninsured, unhelmeted fun-seeking riders. Left strewn on sidewalks, e-scooters are tripping hazards for people with vision loss and an accessibility nightmare for wheelchair users.

It is no solution to just ban e-scooters from sidewalks. The Toronto City Staff reports, referred to above, document the silent menace of e-scooters continuing to be ridden on sidewalks in cities that just ban them from sidewalks. London would need police officers on every block. Toronto City Staff reported to Toronto City Council last summer that no city that allows e-scooters has gotten enforcement right.

E-scooters would cost taxpayers a great deal. This would include new law enforcement, OHIP for treating those injured by e-scooters, and lawsuits by the injured. London has far more pressing budget priorities.

Especially with COVID still raging, London City Council should not be considering the legalization of dangerous e-scooters. In Toronto, a stunning well-funded behind-the-scenes feeding frenzy of back-room pressure by corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies had inundated City Hall with for months. The corporate lobbyists want to make money on e-scooter rentals, laughing all the way to the bank, while injured pedestrians sob all the way to hospital emergency rooms. That the Toronto City Council unanimously said no to e-scooters despite this massive corporate lobbying should signal to London how important it is to stand up for people with disabilities and others endangered by e-scooters.

London City Council should not conduct an e-scooter pilot. A pilot to study what? How many of people living in or visiting London will be injured? We already know they will, from cities that have allowed them. It would be immoral to subject people in London to a City-wide human experiment, especially without their consent, where they can get injured. The call for a “pilot project with e-scooters is just the corporate lobbyists’ ploy to try to get their foot firmly planted in the door, so it will be harder to later get rid of e-scooters.

London, like the rest of Ontario, already has too many disability barriers that impede accessibility for people with disabilities. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires London and the rest of Ontario to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. To allow e-scooters would be to make things worse, not better, by creating new barriers impeding people with disabilities.

E-scooters create problems for businesses, as well as for people with disabilities. That is why Toronto’s Broadview Danforth BIA made an April 26, 2021 submission to the City of Toronto, set out below, that urged that e-scooters not be allowed. That BIA includes a part of Toronto that has similarities to downtown London.

Since we allow bikes, why not e-scooters? An e-scooter, unlike a bike, is a motor vehicle. As such, they should not be exempt from public safety regulations that apply to motor vehicles. A person who has never ridden an e-scooter can hop on one and instantly throttle up to race over 20 KPH. A person cannot instantly pedal a bike that fast, especially if they have never ridden a bike. In any event, London already has bikes. It does not need the dangers of e-scooters.

The July 2020 Toronto City Staff Report shows that e-scooters do not bring the great benefits for reduced car traffic and pollution that the corporate lobbyists for e-scooter rental companies claim.

London should now call a stop to its exploration of e-scooters. Its residents with disabilities, its seniors and others should not have to mount an advocacy effort like the one that was necessary in Toronto to prevent the City from exposing its residents and visitors to the proven dangers that e-scooters pose. This is so especially while they along with all others must continue trying to cope with the pandemic.

Please make London easier and not harder for people with disabilities, seniors and others to get around. Protect those who need safe, accessible streets and sidewalks, not the interests of corporate lobbyists.

These references to banning e-scooters do not refer to the very different scooters that some people with disabilities use for mobility devices. Those mobility devices are now permitted and of course, should remain permitted.

Learn more about the dangers that e-scooters pose to people with disabilities, seniors, children and others, by visiting the AODA Alliance e-scooter web page and by watching the AODA Alliance’s short, captioned video on this issue. Read the AODA Alliance’s March 30, 2021 detailed brief to Toronto City Council on e-scooters. Read the January 22, 2020 open letter to all municipalities and to Premier Doug Ford co-signed by 11 disability organization, that oppose e-scooters in Ontario.

Learn more about the AODA Alliance by visiting www.aodaalliance.org, by following @aodaalliance on Twitter, by visiting our Facebook page at www.facebook.com or by emailing us at [email protected].

April 26, 2021 Written Submission to the City of Toronto by the Broadview Danforth Business Improvement Area

April 26, 2021

TO: Infrastructure and Environment Committee Clerk

FROM: The Broadview Danforth BIA

RE: Item: 1E21.7 Pilot Project: Electric Kick-Scooters

I’m writing on behalf of the 355 business members in the Broadview Danforth BIA to support the recommendation being made by the General Manager, Transportation Services to decline the option to participate in O.Reg 389/19 Pilot Project for Electric Kick-Scooters. Our comments below can be shared with the Infrastructure and Environment Committee — meeting on April 28, 2021.

We have reviewed the components related to this proposed pilot project and have serious concerns that it would be very difficult to implement in a manner consistent with public safety and order.

Following a presentation made by Janet Lo from Transportation Services to BIAs, our key concerns are as follows:

Safety issues related to people with disabilities who use our sidewalks and wouldn’t be able to safely continue doing so if e-scooters were allowed on sidewalks.

Safety issues related to all people using sidewalks — the potential of e-scooters being left on the sidewalks or tied to benches, tree guards etc. and falling over will lead to potential tripping hazards.

Lack of clarity on insurance coverage for riders, e-scooter rental companies and the general public who may be injured by e-scooter riders. Lack of City/police resources to enforce any kind of e-scooter laws. At the moment we have cyclists improperly using the roads and bike lanes and enforcement is almost non-existent. It’s impossible to believe that enforcement will be available for e-scooters. Our businesses are fighting for their survival during this pandemic and the last thing we need is for customers to feel unsafe using our sidewalks.

Thank you for your time and consideration of our feedback on this issue.

Albert Stortchak

Board Chair

Broadview Danforth BIA



Source link

Tell the Health Care Standards Development Committee If You Support the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations on What the Promised Health Care Accessibility Standard Should Include, Spelled Out in the AODA Alliance’s Finalized Brief


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @aodaalliance

Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Tell the Health Care Standards Development Committee If You Support the AODA Alliance’s Recommendations on What the Promised Health Care Accessibility Standard Should Include, Spelled Out in the AODA Alliance’s Finalized Brief

August 5, 2021

         SUMMARY

On August 3, 2021, the AODA Alliance submitted its final brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee. It gives our feedback on its initial or draft recommendations on what should be included in the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard. The Health Care Accessibility Standard is needed to tear down the many barriers that impede people with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system.

We want the Health Care Standards Development Committee to incorporate our recommendations into its final report to the Ontario Government. Our finalized brief includes all the recommendations and other content that was in our draft brief that we circulated for public comment on July 23, 2021. There has only been very minor editing and fine-tuning.

Below we set out the 67 recommendations that our brief makes. To download and read the entire brief that explains these recommendations, visit https://www.aodaalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/August-3-2021-finalized-AODA-Alliance-Brief-to-Health-Care-Standards-Development-Committee.docx

Help us build support for our cause. Please email the Health Care Standards Development Committee. Tell the Committee if you support our recommendations. You can write them at: [email protected]

If you or an organization with which you are connected is writing a submission to the Health Care Standards Development Committee it would be great if your submission could state that you endorse the AODA Alliance ‘s recommendations in its August 3, 2021 brief to the Health Care Standards Development Committee. As well, any individual or organization can simply write that Standards Development Committee at the email address listed above, and just say something like:

“I support the recommendations that the AODA Alliance sent the Health Care Standards Development Committee in its August 3, 2021 Brief.”

The deadline for submitting feedback to the Committee is August 11, 2021. Even if you miss that deadline, it can always help to send in an email any time that supports our recommendations.

Do you want more background on this issue? Explore the time line of our efforts to get a strong Health Care Accessibility Standard by visiting the AODA Alliance website’s health care page.

Now 917 days have passed since the Ford Government received the blistering final report of the Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement, conducted by former Lieutenant Governor David Onley. The Ford Government has announced no plan to implement that report.

We always welcome your feedback. Write us at [email protected].

         MORE DETAILS

List of the AODA Alliance August 3, 2021 Brief’s Recommendations

Where the following recommendations by the AODA Alliance refer to the “Initial Report”, that is the Health Care Standards Development Committee’s Initial Report in which that Committee sets out draft proposals for what the promised Health Care Accessibility Standard should include.

#1 Throughout the Initial Report, action recommendations should be revised to go beyond providing disability accommodations to patients with disabilities, and making plans for barrier-removal and prevention, so as to also spell out specific measures that must be undertaken to remove and prevent recurring disability barriers to health care services.

#2 The Health Care Accessibility Standard’s primary focus should be on specifying detailed actions to remove and prevent barriers, not by overloading people with disabilities with redundant separate consultations with one hospital after the next across Ontario.

#3 The Standards Development Committee should explicitly and comprehensively make recommendations for the entire health care system, and not merely for the small fraction of the health care system that hospitals comprise. At a minimum, the Standards Development Committee should make a strong recommendation that the Health Care Accessibility Standard must address disability barriers in the entire health care system, and not merely in the hospital sector. It should specify that all health care providers should be required to remove and prevent the same barriers, in terms at least as strong as the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

#4 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should cover and apply to all public and private health care programs, services and products available in Ontario, whether or not OHIP covers them. It should cover all health care providers and professions, whether or not Ontario recognizes, regulates or licenses them. It should cover ambulances and other vehicles which can transport patients in connection with health care services. It should cover all parts of Ontario. It should address accessibility barriers that are distinctive to the north, to remote communities, as well as the distinctive barriers facing different racialized, ethnic or other communities within Ontario.

#5 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should address the accessibility needs of patients with any kind of disability, and the accessibility needs of any patients’ support people with any kind of disability. The term “disability” should be defined broadly to include any permanent or episodic disability within the meaning of the AODA or the Ontario Human Rights Code.

#6 The Committee’s final report should clearly state that to make hospitals accessible to people with disabilities, much more is needed than addressing training, accountability and sensitivity within hospitals.

#7 The Initial Report should not recommend that smaller obligated organizations always or presumptively get more time to comply with the Health Care Accessibility Standard than do larger obligated organizations. This especially should not take place in circumstances where smaller organizations can comply more quickly than larger organizations.

#8 The Initial Report should be revised to describe the Standards Development Committee’s mandate as achieving the removal and prevention of disability barriers, the accessibility of health care services, and inclusion of people with disabilities in the health care system. It should not describe the goal as merely making the health care system more accessible or more inclusive, or merely reducing barriers.

#9 The long term objective of the Health Care Accessibility Standard should be to ensure that Ontario’s health care system and the services, facilities and products offered in it, become fully accessible to all patients with any kind of permanent or episodic disabilities and to any support people with disabilities for any patient, by 2025, the AODA’s deadline, by requiring the removal and prevention of the accessibility barriers that impede people with disabilities, and by providing a prompt, accessible, fair, effective and user-friendly process to learn about and seek disability-related accommodations tailored to a person’s individual disability-related needs. It should aim to ensure that patients with disabilities can fully benefit from and be fully included in the health care services and products offered in Ontario’s health care system on a footing of equality. It should aim to eliminate the need for patients with disabilities and any support people with disabilities to have to contend with and fight against health care accessibility barriers, one at a time, and the need for health care providers to have to re-invent the accessibility wheel one health care facility or one health care provider at a time. It should aim for health care services, facilities and products in Ontario to be designed and operated based on accessibility principles of universal design.

#10 The Initial Report’s vision of an accessible health care system should be expanded to include the following:

  1. a) The health care system will be designed and operated from top to bottom for all its patients, including patients with all kinds of permanent or episodic disabilities, as disability is defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The health care system will no longer be designed and operated from an implicit starting point of aiming predominantly to serve the fictional “average” patient, who is too often assumed to have no disabilities.
  1. b) Patients with disabilities, and where needed, any patients’ support people with disabilities, will be able to effectively communicate with health care providers and health care staff in connection with requesting or receiving health care services and products throughout each stage of the healthcare process. This will include face-to-face interactions, telephone or alternates to telephone use, accessible information and forms as well as alternate arrangements for providing one’s signature. For example, health care facilities and ambulances will be equipped with needed equipment to ensure effective communication with people with communication-related disabilities.
  1. c) Patients with disabilities, and where needed, any patients’ support people with disabilities will be able to get and receive information relevant to their health care needs in private, e.g., when giving information at a health care provider’s office or when seeking or receiving information about their medication at a pharmacy, rather than in a public place where others can overhear. Effective procedures will protect the confidentiality of private information relating to patients with disabilities who rely on others to assist them with communication.
  1. d) Information technology and applications which patients can use at home, or at a health care facility in connection with seeking and receiving health care services, will be designed based on principals of universal design and will be accessible to and usable by patients with disabilities, and where needed, to patients’ support people with disabilities. Where needed for effective communication, health care facilities will also provide alternatives to telephone use including email, text, video and authorized human assistance.
  1. e) Health care products, and any instructions for their use, will be designed and available based on principles of universal design so that people with disabilities and not just people with no disability can use and benefit from them.
  1. f) Support services such as sighted guides for visually impaired patients and attendant care will be available to patients with disabilities who need them while going to or at a facility to receive health care services.
  1. g) Publicly funded appointments for receiving health care services will be sufficiently long to enable those patients with a disability, who need more time, to be able to receive the health care services they need. If a patient with disabilities cannot attend a health care provider’s premises due to their disability, there will be in place measures whenever therapeutically possible for remote appointments or home visits.
  1. h) Patients will be free to use their own accommodation supports, such as service animals, when seeking or obtaining health care services and products.
  1. i) New Government strategies, services and facilities in Ontario’s health care system will be proactively designed from the start and operated to fully include the needs of patients with disabilities. Those responsible at the provincial and local levels for leading, overseeing and operating Ontario’s health care system will have strong and specific requirements to address disability accessibility and inclusion in their mandates and will be accountable for their work on this issue. Ontario’s disability community will have effective input into public decisions on the design and operation of Ontario’s health care system to ensure that existing disability accessibility barriers are removed and no new ones are created.
  1. j) An accessible health care system is one where people with disabilities can work in a barrier-free workplace.

#11 The Initial Report should not merely recommend that an obligated organization “consider accessibility.” It should instead require specific actions that will achieve accessibility.

#12 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should require each health care facility and health care provider to create a welcoming environment for patients with disabilities and any patients’ support people with disabilities to seek accommodations for their disabilities when receiving health care services.

#13 Each major health care facility such as each hospital should be required to establish a permanent committee of its board to be called the “Accessibility Committee.” This Accessibility Committee should have responsibility for overseeing the facility’s compliance with the AODA, and with the requirements of the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in so far as they guarantee the right of people with disabilities to fully participate in and fully benefit from the health care services that the facility provides. It should endeavour to reflect the spectrum of disability needs.

#14 Each major health care facility such as each hospital should be required to establish or designate the position of Chief Accessibility/Accommodation Officer, reporting to the Chief Executive Officer. Their mandate, responsibility and authority should be to ensure proper leadership on the facility’s accessibility and accommodation obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the AODA, including the requirements of this accessibility standard. This responsibility may be assigned to an existing senior management official.

#15 Beyond the specific measures to remove and prevent barriers set out in the Health Care Accessibility Standard and in other accessibility standards enacted under the AODA, each health care facility and health care provider should be required to periodically and systematically review its health care services, facilities, equipment and products to identify recurring accessibility barriers that can impede the provision of health care services to patients with disabilities. A comprehensive plan for removing and preventing these accessibility barriers should be developed, implemented and made public with clear timelines, with clear assignment of responsibilities for action, monitoring for progress, and reporting to the facility’s accessibility committee. This plan should aim at all accessibility barriers that can impede patients with disabilities from fully benefiting from the facility’s health care services, whether or not they are specifically identified in the Health Care Accessibility Standard or in any other AODA accessibility standards.

#16 The Initial Report should be expanded to recommend specific, detailed accessibility requirements in the built environment of hospitals and other health care facilities such as those recommended in Appendix 1 to this brief. The goal of these should be that the built environment in the health care system, such as hospitals and any other places where health care services are provided, including the furniture there, will all be fully accessible to people with disabilities, and will be designed based on the principle of universal design. For example:

  1. a) The front area or drop-off areas for a hospital or other health care facility should be accessible, with automatic power doors that do not require a button to be found and pressed, and with tactile walking surface indicators both to warn when a person is walking into a driving area and to guide a person to the facility’s entrance. All other entrances and exits should be fully accessible, with automatic power door operators and an accessible path of travel to the door. This includes entrances from indoor or underground parking to the health care facility.
  1. b) Inside the health care facility, major public areas such as emergency room doors should always be fully accessible and have automatic power door openers.
  1. c) For the benefit of patients and others with learning and cognitive disabilities, vision loss or other disabilities that can affect mobility or way-finding, hospitals and other health care facilities should have way-finding markings in important areas such as the main lobby from the front door to the help desk and other major routes such as to main elevators, including colour contrasted markings such as a carpeted path or tactile walking surface indicators.
  1. d) Hospitals and other health care facilities with elevators should have accessible elevators that can accommodate people using mobility devices. They should also have accessible elevator buttons (with braille and large print on or beside each button), braille and large print floor numbers just outside elevator doors, and audible floor announcements on elevators. Elevator button panels should be consistent in layout from one elevator to the next.
  1. e) Health care facilities, including hospitals, should never install “destination elevators” which require a person to pre-select the floor to which they are going before entering the elevators. These present unfixable accessibility problems.
  1. f) Hospitals and other health care facilities should have accessible signage throughout, including braille and large print, for key locations. For example, public bathrooms should have accessible braille and large print signs on them. These signs should be placed in consistent and predictable locations.
  1. g) Where a health care facility has power doors that require a button to be pushed (i.e., they don’t open automatically), the button should always be located throughout the health care facility in a consistent place to make it easier to find. The button should be located near the door, so that a slow-moving individual can make it through the open door after pressing the button before the door closes. The button should always be located on the wall, and not on a free-standing post or bollard.
  1. h) Despite weaker requirements in other AODA accessibility standards, the Health Care Accessibility Standard should set out specific and strong requirements for the accessibility of any electronic kiosks in hospitals and other health care facilities, such as:
  1. i) specifying their required end-user functionality that effectively address recurring known needs arising from specific disabilities, and,
  1. ii) ensuring that they are at an accessible height e.g., for those using a wheelchair or other mobility device.

As a starting point, see the US Access Board’s standard for accessible electronic kiosks.

  1. i) Patient consultation or treatment rooms should have enough space to enable people using mobility devices to navigate in them and reach any treatment or consultation area. They should have enough space to enable a Sign Language interpreter to be positioned in the room to interpret for a deaf patient or support person.
  1. j) Movable furniture such as desks, tables or chairs should not obstruct accessible paths of travel around a facility where health care services are delivered, such as a doctor’s office, e.g., in their hallways or treatment rooms.
  1. k) Major health care facilities should provide accessible waiting areas for accessible transit pickup and drop-off, close to the pickup/drop-off point, with clear sight lines.
  1. l) Major health care facilities such as hospitals should be designed to avoid major sensory overstimulation or acoustic overloads, such as bright lights, loud music, large atrium areas, or frequent loud announcements. This is especially important in treatment areas or hospital rooms.
  1. m) Throughout a health care facility, proper colour contrasting should be required to assist people with low vision and cognitive disabilities, such as around elevator opening, doorways, and on the edge of stairs and handrails.
  1. n) Health care facilities should be required to have accessible bathrooms so that all patients can use the facilities, including adult change tables, sufficient transfer space and maneuvering room for mobility devices.
  1. o) Major health care facilities should include sensory rooms for people with sensory overload issues, such as in hospital emergency rooms.
  1. p) In a health care facility, all stairs and staircases, including “feature staircases” (included as aesthetic design enhancements) should be accessible, e.g., with tactile warnings at the top and bottom of each set of stairs, no open risers and with proper colour contrast on railings and step edges. There should never be curving staircases.
  1. q) Health care facilities should provide charging areas for electric mobility devices.
  1. r) Hospital rooms should be able to accommodate a patient’s mobility device so they can keep theirs with them and readily available when admitted to hospital.
  1. s) In a health care facility, waiting areas, isolation areas, breastfeeding rooms, staff areas and volunteer areas should be designed to be accessible.
  1. t) Accessible and bariatric paths of travel should be provided in health care facilities.
  1. u) Despite the more limited provisions regarding the provision of accessible parking spaces in other AODA accessibility standards, the Health Care Accessibility Standard should set higher and more specific requirements for accessible parking spaces for health care facilities, such as:
  1. i) requiring a greater number of accessible parking spots for the facility, where possible.
  1. ii) requiring that the accessible parking spots be located as close as possible to the doors of the health care facility.

iii) requiring that at least some of the accessible parking spots have larger dimensions to accommodate larger accessible vans, so that a passenger with a disability can park in that spot and have sufficient room to exit the vehicle, and

  1. iv) requiring that there be accessible curb cuts and an accessible path of travel from the accessible parking spots to the health care facilities’ entrances.
  1. v) Health Care facilities should have designated snow-piling areas outside, to prevent snow from being shoveled onto accessible paths of travel.
  1. w) Major health care facilities such as hospitals should provide service animal relief areas close to the facility’s door, covered wherever possible, with an accessible path of travel to them.
  1. x) When a major new health care facility like a hospital is being designed, or a major new wing or renovation is being planned, especially if public money is helping fund it, a properly trained and qualified accessibility consultant should be required to be engaged on the project from the very beginning. Their accessible design advice should be transmitted unedited to the Government or other organization for whom the project is being built and should be made public. Direct consultation with end-users with disabilities should be part of the design process from the beginning.

#17 The standard should require that:

  1. a) Each hospital patient’s bed should have an accessible means for a patient with disabilities to notify the nursing station of a health care need, not just a button or pull-string that they may not be able to reach and operate.
  1. b) Furniture such as seating in health care facilities should be designed with accessibility features and positioned in a manner that does not block accessible paths of travel.
  1. c) A Help Desk should be positioned immediately inside the main entrance of any major health care facility, including hospitals, to assist patients, including patients with disabilities, to get directions or help to their destination within the facility, or to request other accommodation supports.
  1. d) In any discrete department or area where health care services are provided, (such as an area for day surgery), the check-in desk should be located immediately adjacent to the entrance to that area, so that patients and support people with disabilities can easily reach it after entering the room or area.
  1. e) Accessible public service counters should be installed, even in existing health care facilities, with a specified height requirement, no glass barrier creating barriers for people with hearing loss and knee space for people using a mobility device.
  1. f) A large health care facility like a hospital should have rest areas along routes through the building so that people with fatiguing conditions can stop and rest along their route to get health care services.
  1. g) Health care facilities such as hospitals should have emergency areas of refuge with separate ventilation in case of fire, so that people with disabilities who cannot escape the building have safe areas to wait, while being protected from life-threatening smoke.
  1. h) The Ontario Government should make available to health care facilities and providers: guides on accessible procurement including procurement of accessible furniture, lists of vendors of accessible furniture. The Ontario Government should provide a hub for procuring accessible furniture to help health care facilities and providers reduce the cost of their acquisition.

#18 the Ministry of Health should within one year survey all offices of physicians, chiropractors, occupational and physiotherapists and other like health care providers where they provide direct health care services to patients, on the extent to which their premises are accessible for patients with disabilities. The Ministry should make public a report on the results of this survey (anonymized).

#19 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should set specific technical requirements for the accessibility of diagnostic and treatment equipment. As a starting point, the Health Care Standards Development Committee should consider the accessible medical diagnostic equipment standards that the US Access Board has formulated. The needs of patients with all kinds of disabilities, and not only those with mobility disabilities, should be met by the technical requirements that the Health Care Accessibility Standard sets.

#20 The Ontario Government should impose a strict funding condition on the purchase or rental of any new health care diagnostic or treatment equipment anywhere in the health care system requiring that it must be accessible to patients with disabilities and designed based on principles of universal design, in compliance with the technical standards to be included in the Health Care Accessibility Standard.

#21 The Ontario Government should be required to make readily available to health care providers and facilities, and to the public, an up-to-date list of accessible health care diagnostic and treatment equipment and venders, so that each health care provider and facility does not have to re-invent the wheel by re-investigating these same issues.

#22 To save money, the Ontario Government should be required to attempt to negotiate bulk purchasing of accessible diagnostic and treatment equipment so that health care facilities and providers can obtain them at lower prices.

#23 When health care facilities and providers purchase, rent or otherwise acquire new or replacement diagnostic or treatment equipment, these should be required to be accessible to patients with disabilities and to be designed based on principles of universal design.

#24 Health care facilities and providers should survey their existing diagnostic or treatment equipment, and take the following steps to address any accessibility problems they have, if that equipment is not now being replaced:

  1. a) Identify where the nearest place is where a patient can get diagnosis or treatment services where there is accessible diagnostic and treatment equipment, and to help facilitate the access of the patient with disabilities to health care services from that provider or facility.
  1. b) Adopt and implement an interim plan to make any readily achievable accessibility improvements to the health care facility’s or provider’s existing diagnostic or treatment equipment.
  1. c) Develop plans to purchase, rent or otherwise acquire accessible diagnostic or treatment equipment over a period of up to five years.

#25 These accessibility/universal design requirements should also apply to consumer health care products, such as for example, pill bottles.

#26 Because Ontario’s system for electronic health care records has been centrally created, the Health Care Accessibility Standard should require the Ontario Government and any provincial agency that is responsible for overseeing the design, procurement or operation of the system for electronic health care records to ensure that these records will be kept and available in accessible formats for patients and support people with disabilities, and, as a related benefit, to health care providers and their staff with disabilities, except where technically impossible. PDF format should not be treated as being an accessible format.

#27 Individual health care organizations or facilities, including laboratories, that create their own health care records in electronic form should also be required to ensure that they are readily available in accessible formats for patients with disabilities and any patients’ support people with disabilities, and, as a side benefit, for health care providers and their staff with disabilities, except where technically impossible.

#28 All the Initial Report’s recommendations on training on accessibility laws should be revised to explicitly include training on the accessibility requirements regarding people with disabilities in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

#29 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should require training on disability accessibility, disability human rights and disability Charter obligations for existing health care professionals as a condition of continuing in practice.

#30 The Ontario Government should be required to impose a condition of its funding for post-secondary education programs to train anyone in a health care discipline, profession or field, that the college or university that offers that degree or course must include a sufficient designated and mandatory curriculum on meeting the needs of patients with disabilities.

#31 Wherever possible, any new health care facility or provider receiving public funds that is setting up a new location should be required to locate at or near an accessible public transit stop on an accessible public transit route, with an accessible path of travel from the public transit stop to the health care facility or provider. Similarly, where an existing health care facility or provider is going to move to another location, it should be required to attempt to relocate to a location that is on an accessible public transit route.

#32 Where it is medically possible for a patient to take part in a health care service without physically attending at the health care facility or provider, an option should be provided for taking part remotely, e.g., via Facetime or other remote video conferencing. The Health Care Accessibility Standard should also require the removal of the OHIP barrier to funded physicians house calls.

#33 Where OHIP or a health care facility or provider has a policy or practice of permitting only one health issue per visit, an exception should be created for patients with disabilities for whom transportation to the health care facility is impeded by accessibility barriers.

#34 A health care facility or provider should not be permitted to charge a late fee or a missed appointment fee where a patient with a disability has in good faith attempted to attend on time but was made late or precluded from attending by transportation barriers (such as being made late for the appointment by the community’s para-transit service).

#35 When the Ontario Government is undertaking planning for new health care services, or for improvements to health care services, it should be required to include in those plans, and to make public, requirements to ensure that wherever possible, health care services and facilities are provided in locations on accessible public transit routes, with an accessible path of travel from the accessible public transit stop to the facility or provider.

#36 The 2011 Transportation Accessibility Standard should be amended to set accessibility requirements for public transit stations and stops, as the joint July 31, 2017 AODA Alliance/ARCH brief to the Transportation Standards Development Committee recommended.

#37 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should set technical specifications to ensure the full accessibility of ambulances and other vehicles that transport patients, including patients with disabilities, to or from health care services. See also below re: the need to include equipment in those vehicles for communication with patients with communication-related disabilities.

#38 Any health care facility or provider, including such places as doctors’ offices and pharmacies, should be required to designate an accessible private area where patients with disabilities can give and receive private information in connection with their health care services or products without others being able to overhear this.

#39 Health care facilities and providers should be required to notify all patients, including patients with disabilities, of their right to have their health care needs and issues discussed and information exchanged in a private location, and should instruct their staff, including any who deal with patients or the public, of their duty to fully respect this right.

#40 Without limiting the information and communications to which this part of the Health Care Accessibility Standard should apply, it should address:

  1. a) Information or communications needed to provide a health care provider with the patient’s history, needs, symptoms or other health problems.
  1. b) Information and communications regarding the patient’s diagnosis, prognosis or treatment, including any risks, follow-up or other health care services to secure.
  1. c) A health care facility’s discharge instructions.

#41 Health Care facilities should be equipped with assistive listening devices to enable patients with hearing loss and support people with hearing loss to be able to effectively communicate e.g., at nursing stations, help desks, and when dealing directly with health care providers.

#42 Health care-related products such as prescription and non-prescription medications should be provided when needed with accessible labels, instructions or users’ manuals, available in accessible formats. Those who sell or rent these to the public should be required to regularly notify the public, including their customers, that accessible labels, instructions, and users’ manuals are available on request. See e.g. work on developing standards and practices for accessible prescription drug container labels by the US Access Board. See also the February 6, 2020 news release announcing that the Empire chain of stores, including all Sobeys Stores, will provide accessible prescription labels to customers with disabilities free of charge on request. If they can, so can all other drug stores.

#43 Where a health care facility or health care provider provides information about their services or facilities in print or via the internet, they should be required to ensure that their website meets current international accessibility requirements along prompt time lines, even if the Information and Communication Accessibility Standard does not now require this. Currently, the Information and Communication Accessibility Information and Communication Accessibility Standard has too many exemptions, leaves out too many providers of goods and services, and has timelines that are too long. Whether or not those exemptions, exclusions and long timelines are justified for other sectors, they are unjustified for a sector as important as the health care sector.

#44 Ambulances and other vehicles that transport patients should include equipment to facilitate communication with patients with communication disabilities, such as remotely-accessed sign language interpretation and other communication supports.

#45 The Ontario Government should be required to set up hubs or centralized services to enable health care facilities and providers, including small providers, to quickly and easily access communication supports needed for patients with communication-related disabilities (for example Sign Language interpreters and real time captioning). The Ontario Government should fund these services as part of its funding of the health care system, in furtherance of the Supreme Court of Canada’s Eldridge decision.

#46 Any prepared information on health care conditions, treatment instructions, prognoses, risks, laboratory or other test results and the like which a health care facility or provider makes available to patients, whether in print or electronic form, should be made available at the same time on request in an accessible format. The standard should direct that PDF format is not sufficient to be accessible, and that if information is available in a PDF document, it should also be posted in an accessible format such as HTML or MS Word. Health care facilities and providers should be required to notify patients, including patients and their support people with disabilities, that any hard copy or electronic documents provided to them can be requested and obtained in an accessible format on request.

#47 Where a health care facility or provider asks patients or their support people to use information technology hardware or software in connection with the delivery of health care services (such as asking them to fill out their medical history on a portable computer or tablet device), the facility or provider shall:

  1. a) In the case of new or updated information technology or equipment to be acquired, ensure that it is accessible to people with disabilities and is designed based on principles of universal design;
  1. b) In the case of existing information technology now being used, retrofit to be accessible except where this would pose an undue hardship and,
  1. c) For those people who prefer this option, ensure that patients with disabilities or their support people with disabilities are assisted to use that technology, in private, at the same time as others would use it, where this would not reduce their access to the health care services to which it pertains.

#48 The Ontario Government should be required to develop and make public a strategy for ensuring that health care promotion initiatives in Ontario are accessible to people with disabilities. For example, it should require that:

  1. a) All advertisements for health care promotion should have captioning and audio description.
  1. b) All mail-out, printed and online materials focusing on health promotion should be required to be in accessible formats, regardless of any exemptions in the Information and Communication Accessibility Standard.

#49 Hospitals and other major health care facilities should be required to provide support services for patients with disabilities when needed to ensure that those patients can fully access and benefit from the health care services that the facility offers, to let patients know about the availability of these services, and to annually publicly report on the number of staff available to provide this support, such as:

  1. a) Attendant care.
  1. b) Assistance with meals.
  1. c) Assistance with being guided to and getting around the health care facility e.g., for patients with vision loss or cognitive disabilities.

#50 In a hospital or other major health care facility, there should be one nurse at each nursing station designated to receive training and to be responsible for addressing the needs of patients with complex needs due to their disability.

#51 Each health care provider and facility should be required to put in place a system and designate a person to solicit and receive requests from patients or their support people for disability accommodations in connection with health care services or products.

#52 Each health care provider or facility should be required to make readily-available to the public, including to their patients, in an accessible format, information about how to identify themselves in advance to the health care provider as having disability-related accessibility or accommodation needs, and to ask to arrange for these needs to be met.

#53 Each hospital and larger health care facility should be required to collect anonymized information on disability-related accessibility and accommodation requests received from or on behalf of patients with disabilities, to assist that health care provider or facility in planning for future disability accessibility and accommodation. This anonymized information should be available for study by the Government or other health policy planners.

#54 The Chief Executive Officer of any hospital or large health care facility should be required to annually review the information that the facility has collected on the requests for disability accessibility and accommodation that the facility has received and report to the board of directors on measures that could improve the facility’s capacity to meet these needs.

#55 Each health care profession’s self-governing college should be required to:

  1. a) Review its public complaints process to identify any barriers at any stage in that process that could adversely affect people with disabilities filing a complaint, or about whom a complaint is filed.
  1. b) Develop a plan for removing and preventing any accessibility barriers identified, whether or not those barriers are specified in any current AODA accessibility standards.
  1. c) Publicly report to its governing board of directors and the public on these barriers and the college’s plans to remove and prevent such barriers, in order to achieve a barrier-free complaints process.
  1. d) Establish and maintain a standing committee of its governing board of directors responsible for the accessibility of the services that the college offers the public, including, but not limited to its public complaints process.
  1. e) Consult with the public, including people with disabilities, on barriers that people with disabilities experience when seeking the services of the health care professionals that that profession regulates, to be shared with the board’s Accessibility Committee. To avoid duplication of efforts and burdens on the disability community, several regulatory colleges can jointly undertake this consultation.

#56 The Ministry of Health should be required to designate a senior official at the “Assistant Deputy Minister” level as the leading public official who is responsible for ensuring accessibility, accommodation and inclusion for patients with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system. They should be responsible for ensuring that any policies, plans or proposals regarding the health care system are screened to ensure that they will not create any new barriers for patients with disabilities, and will instead remove barriers.

#57 The Ministry of Health should be required to conduct a system-wide review of the health care system for any systemic barriers, in consultation with the public including people with disabilities. It should identify and make public a plan to remove and prevent systemic or system-wide barriers that impede patients with disabilities from receiving accessible health care, along time lines that the Health Care Accessibility Standard will set.

#58 Each hospital and other major health care facility should be required to establish and regularly publicize a dedicated disability accessibility/accommodation complaints hotline, to trigger prompt action when problems are raised.

#59 The Ministry of Health should be required to establish and regularly publicize a hotline to receive complaints about accessibility problems facing patients and support people with disabilities in Ontario’s health care system. The Ministry should be required to annually publish a report with an anonymized summary of the substance of complaints received and action taken to prevent their recurrence.

#60 The Health Care Accessibility Standard should require the creation of authoritative, well-trained system navigators to assist patients with disabilities and their support people to navigate Ontario’s health care system.

#61 The OHIP fee schedule should be revised to provide for added time to serve the needs of patients with disabilities who need more time for assessment, diagnosis and treatment, to eliminate the harmful financial incentive that the Ontario Government now creates for physicians to avoid treating taking on those patients.

#62 Each hospital and major health care facility should be required to establish a committee of those employees and volunteers with disabilities who wish to voluntarily join it, to give the facility’s senior management feedback on the barriers in the health care facility that could impede patients with disabilities or any patients’ support people with disabilities, and/or employees/volunteers with disabilities.

#63 The Health Care Standards Development Committee should endorse the recommendations regarding health care services in the Initial Report of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee on barriers facing students with disabilities in Ontario schools.

#64 The Initial Report’s Recommendation 15 regarding the conduct of an after-the fact review of the problems facing people with disabilities in accessing health care during the COVID-19 pandemic should be revised so that this review is an Independent Review conducted by trusted and respected persons who are independent of the Government and of the health care system.

#65 The Initial Report should recommend that the Health Care Accessibility Standard

  1. a) Require the Government to immediately rescind the January 13, 2021 critical care triage protocol and all directions and training materials relating to it, and should direct that these are not to be followed or considered appropriate under any situation.
  1. b) Require the Ontario Government to immediately make public all versions of the critical care triage protocol that have been in force in Ontario, or distributed to hospitals, as well as any critical care triage protocol or directions to ambulances or other emergency services, and any reports that the government received from the Government-appointed Bioethics Table.
  1. c) Require that if critical care triage is directed to occur during this or other emergencies, the Government shall make public on a daily basis the number of patients who are refused or denied critical care that they need and want, due to critical care triage.
  1. e) Require that the Clinical Frailty Scale shall not be used as a tool to decide who is to ever be refused critical care they need and want.
  1. f) Forbid the use or distribution of the “Short Term Mortality Risk Calculator” that was made available under the auspices of Critical Care Services Ontario to all Ontario hospitals.

#66 the Health Care Accessibility Standard should require the Government to ensure the availability of remote or distance delivery of health care services where medically feasible, and where patients with disabilities face barriers attending at a health care office or facility to receive such services.

#67 The Initial Report should be expanded to list a full range of disability barriers reported to the Standards Development Committee in access to health care during the pandemic.



Source link

In a Detailed Report Card Delivered During National AccessAbility Week, the Ford Government Gets a Blistering “F” Grade for Its Three Year Record Since Taking Office on Action to Make Ontario Accessible for 2.6 Million Ontarians with Disabilities


ACCESSIBILITY FOR ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALLIANCE

NEWS RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

In a Detailed Report Card Delivered During National AccessAbility Week, the Ford Government Gets a Blistering “F” Grade for Its Three Year Record Since Taking Office on Action to Make Ontario Accessible for 2.6 Million Ontarians with Disabilities

May 31, 2021 Toronto: During National AccessAbility Week, the non-partisan grassroots AODA Alliance releases a report card (set out below) on the Ford Government’s record for tearing down the barriers that people with disabilities face, awarding the Government an “F” grade.

When he was campaigning for votes in the 2018 election, Doug Ford said that our issues “are close to the hearts of our Ontario PC Caucus” and that:

“Too many Ontarians with disabilities still face barriers when they try to get a job, ride public transit, get an education, use our healthcare system, buy goods or services, or eat in restaurants.”

Yet three years after taking office, people with disabilities are no better off, and in some important ways, are worse off, according to today’s new report card. Passed unanimously in 2005, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act requires the Ontario Government to lead this province to become accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. Ontario is nowhere near that goal with under four years left. The Ford Government has no effective plan to meet that deadline.

This report card’s key findings include:

  1. The Ford Government has no comprehensive plan of action on accessibility, 851 days after receiving the Report of David Onley’s AODA Independent Review.
  1. The Government has not ensured that public money will never be used to create new accessibility barriers.
  1. The Ford Government has failed to enact or strengthen any accessibility standards under the AODA.

 

  1. The Ford Government has announced no new action to effectively ensure the accessibility of public transportation.

 

  1. The Ford Government imposed substantial and harmful delays in the work of Five important AODA Standards Development Committees that was underway before the Government took office.

 

  1. The Ford Government has repeatedly violated its mandatory duty under the AODA to make public the initial or final recommendations of a Government-appointed Standards Development Committee “upon receiving” those recommendations.

 

  1. The Ford Government has failed for 3 years to fulfil its mandatory duty to appoint a Standards Development Committee to review the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard.

 

  1. The Ford Government has made public no detailed plan for effective AODA enforcement.

 

  1. In a waste of public money, the Ford Government diverted 1.3 million dollars into the Rick Hansen Foundation’s controversial private accessibility certification process. This has resulted in no disability barriers being removed or prevented.

 

  1. The Ford Government unfairly burdened Ontarians with disabilities with having to fight against new safety dangers being created by municipalities allowing electric scooters.

 

  1. The Ford Government’s rhetoric has been harmfully diluting the AODA’s goal of full accessibility.

 

  1. The Ford Government has given public voice to false and troubling stereotypes About disability accessibility.

 

  1. The Ford Government has failed to effectively address the urgent needs of Ontarians with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

  1. The lives of vulnerable Ontarians with disabilities are endangered by the Ford Government’s secret plans for critical care triage during the COVID-19 pandemic, If hospitals cannot serve All critical care Patients.

“We keep offering the Ford Government constructive ideas, but too often, they are disregarded,” said David Lepofsky, chair of the AODA Alliance which campaigns for accessibility for people with disabilities. “Premier Ford hasn’t even met with us, and has turned down every request for a meeting.”

AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has had to resort to a court application (now pending) to get the Ford Government to fulfil one of its important duties under the AODA, and a Freedom of Information application to try to force the Ford Government to release its secret plans for critical care triage if the COVID-19pandemic worsens, requiring rationing of critical care.

Contact: AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky, [email protected]

Twitter: @aodaalliance

 A Report Card on the Ford Government’s Record, After Three Years in Office, on Achieving Disability Accessibility

May 31, 2021

Prepared by the AODA Alliance

 Introduction

This year’s National AccessAbility Week takes place when Ontario’s Ford Government is completing its third year of a four year term in office. This is an especially appropriate time to take stock of how well the Ford Government is doing at advancing the goal of making Ontario accessible to people with disabilities by 2025, the deadline which the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act enshrines in Ontario law.

It is with a strong sense of frustration that we award the Ford Government a failing “F” grade for its record on this issue.

The Ontario Public Service includes quite a number of public officials who are deeply and profoundly dedicated to the goal of tearing down barriers impeding people with disabilities, and preventing the creation of new disability barriers. They have commendably found quite a number of willing partners within the disability community (both individuals and disability organizations), and among obligated organizations in the public and private sectors. These partners are also committed to the goal of accessibility, and have in their spheres of influenced tried to move things forward. To all these people we and people with disabilities generally are indebted.

For example, several Standards Development Committees have been appointed under the AODA to craft recommendations on what enforceable AODA accessibility standards should include to be strong and effective. They have invested many hours, trying to come up with workable recommendations.

As well, over the past three years, the Ontario Government has continued to operate voluntary programs that have existed for years to contribute to the goal of accessibility. The Ford Government has also, we believe, improved things by freeing its Standards Development Committees from excessive involvement by Public Service staff. This has enabled those staff to support the work of those committees, while leaving them free to do their own work, devising recommendations for the Government.

However, all of that cannot succeed in bringing Ontario to the goal of an accessible province by 2025, without strong leadership by the Ontario Government and those who steer it. This has been the conclusion of three successive Independent Reviews, conducted under the AODA, by Charles Beer in 2010, by Mayo Moran in 2014 and by David Onley in 2018.

Over the past three years, we regret that that leadership has continued to be lacking. The result is that Ontario is falling further and further behind the goal of an accessible province by 2025. Less and less time is available to correct that.

This report details several of the key ways that the Ontario Government has fallen far short of what Ontarians with disabilities need. As the Government’s mandatory annual report on its efforts on accessibility back in 2019 reveals, the Government’s prime focus has been on trying to raise awareness about accessibility. As has been the Ontario Government’s practice for years, that 2019 annual report was belatedly posted on line on the eve of the 2021 National AccessAbility Week, two years after many of the events reported in it.

Decades of experience, leading to the enactment of the AODA in 2005, has proven over and over that such awareness-raising and voluntary measures won’t get Ontario to the goal of accessibility by 2025, or indeed, ever. As always, the AODA Alliance, as a non-partisan coalition, remains ready, willing, able, and eager to work with the Government, and to offer constructive ideas on how it can change course and fulfil the AODA’s dream that the Legislature unanimously endorsed in May 2005.

1. The Ford Government Has No Comprehensive Plan of Action on Accessibility, 851 Days After Receiving the Report of David Onley’s AODA Independent Review

We have been urging the Ford Government to develop a detailed plan on accessibility since shortly after it took office, to lay out how it will get Ontario to the AODA’s mandatory goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities by 2025. It has never done so.

In December 2018, the Ford Government said it was awaiting the final report of former Lieutenant Governor David Onley’s Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement, before deciding what it would do regarding accessibility for people with disabilities. On January 31, 2019, the Government received the final report of the David Onley Independent Review of the AODA’s implementation and enforcement. Minister for Accessibility Raymond Cho publicly said on April 10, 2019 that David Onley did a “marvelous job.”

The Onley report found that Ontario is still full of “soul-crushing” barriers impeding people with disabilities. It concluded that progress on accessibility has taken place at a “glacial pace.” It determined that that the goal of accessibility by 2025 is nowhere in sight, and that specific new Government actions, spelled out in the report, are needed.

However, in the 851 days since receiving the Onley Report, the Ford Government has not made public a detailed plan to implement that report’s findings and recommendations. The Government has staged some media events with the Accessibility Minister to make announcements, but little if anything new was ever announced. The Government repeated pledges to lead by example on accessibility, and to take an all-of-Government approach to accessibility. But these pledges were backed by nothing new to make them mean anything more than when previous governments and ministers engaged in similar rhetorical flourishes.

2. The Government Has Not Ensured that Public Money Will Never Be Used to Create New Accessibility Barriers

In its three years in office, we have seen no effective action by the Ford Government to ensure that public money is never used to create new disability barriers or to perpetuate existing barriers. The Ontario Government spends billions of public dollars on infrastructure and on procuring goods, services and facilities, without ensuring that no new barriers are thereby created, and that no existing barriers are thereby perpetuated.

As but one example, last summer, the Ford Government announced that it would spend a half a billion dollars on the construction of new schools and on additions to existing schools. However, it announced no action to ensure that those new construction projects are fully accessible to students, teachers, school staff and parents with disabilities. The Ontario Ministry of Education has no effective standards or policies in place to ensure this accessibility, and has announced no plans to create any.

3. The Ford Government Has Enacted or Strengthened No Accessibility Standards

In its three years in power, the Ford Government has enacted no new AODA accessibility standards. It has revised no existing accessibility standards to strengthen them. It has not begun the process of developing any new accessibility standards that were not already under development when the Ford Government took office in June 2018.

As one major example, the Ford Government has not committed to develop and enact a Built Environment Accessibility Standard under the AODA, to ensure that the built environment becomes accessible to people with disabilities. No AODA Built Environment Accessibility Standard now exists. None is under development.

This failure to act is especially striking for two reasons. First, the last two AODA Independent Reviews, the 2014 Independent Review by Mayo Moran and the 2019 Independent Review by David Onley, each identified the disability barriers in the built environment as a priority. They both called for new action under the AODA. Second, when he was seeking the public’s votes in the 2018 Ontario election, Doug Ford made specific commitments regarding the disability barriers in the built environment. Doug Ford’s May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance, setting out his party’s election commitments on disability accessibility, included this:

  1. a) “Your issues are close to the hearts of our Ontario PC Caucus and Candidates, which is why they will play an outstanding role in shaping policy for the Ontario PC Party to assist Ontarians in need.”
  1. b) “Whether addressing standards for public housing, health care, employment or education, our goal when passing the AODA in 2005 was to help remove the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating more fully in their communities.”
  1. c) “Making Ontario fully accessible by 2025 is an important goal under the AODA and it’s one that would be taken seriously by an Ontario PC government.”
  1. d) “This is why we’re disappointed the current government has not kept its promise with respect to accessibility standards. An Ontario PC government is committed to working with the AODA Alliance to address implementation and enforcement issues when it comes to these standards.

Ontario needs a clear strategy to address AODA standards and the Ontario Building Code’s accessibility provisions. We need Ontario’s design professionals, such as architects, to receive substantially improved professional training on disability and accessibility.”

4. The Ford Government Has Announced No New Action to Effectively Ensure the Accessibility of Public Transportation

Just before the 2018 Ontario election, the Ontario Government received the final recommendations for reforms to the Transportation Accessibility Standard from the AODA Transportation Standards Development committee. Since then, and over the ensuing three years in office, the Ford Government announced no action on those recommendations. It has not publicly invited any input or consultation on those recommendations. At the same time, the Ford Government has made major announcements about the future of public transit infrastructure in Ontario. As such, barriers in public transportation remained while the risk remains that new ones will continue to be created.

 5. The Ford Government Imposed Substantial and Harmful Delays in the Work of Five Important AODA Standards Development Committees that was Underway Before the Government Took Office

When the Ford Government won the 2018 Ontario election, the work of five AODA Standards Development Committees were all frozen, pending the new Minister for Accessibility getting a briefing. Any delay in the work of those committees would further slow the AODA’s sluggish implementation documented in the Onley Report.

Those Standards Development Committees remained frozen for months, long after the minister needed time to be briefed. We had to campaign for months to get that freeze lifted.

Over four months later, in November 2018, the Ford Government belatedly lifted its freeze on the work of the Employment Standards Development Committee and the Information and Communication Standards Development Committee. However it did not then also lift the freeze on the work of the three other Standards Development Committees, those working on proposals for accessibility standards in health care and education.

We had to keep up the pressure for months. The Ford Government waited until March 7, 2019 before it announced that it was lifting its freeze on the work of the Health Care Standards Development Committee and the two Education Standards Development Committees. It was as long as half a year after that announcement that those three Standards Development Committees finally got back to work.

In the meantime, the many unfair disability barriers in Ontario’s education system and Ontario’s health care system remained in place, while new ones continued to be created. The final enactment of new accessibility standards in the areas of health care and education was delayed commensurately, as was the enactment of revisions to strengthen Ontario’s 2011 Information and Communication Accessibility Standard and Ontario’s 2011 Employment Accessibility Standard.

6. The Ford Government Has Repeatedly Violated Its Mandatory Duty Under the AODA to Make Public the Initial or Final Recommendations of a Government-Appointed Standards Development Committee “Upon Receiving” Those Recommendations

Section 10(1) of the AODA requires the Government to make public the initial or final recommendations that it receives from a Standards Development Committee, appointed under the AODA “upon receiving” those recommendations. The Ontario Government under successive governments and ministers has wrongly taken the approach that it can delay making those recommendations public for months despite the AODA‘s clear, mandatory and unambiguous language.

The Ford Government has certainly taken this troubling approach. It delayed some two years before making public the final recommendations of the Employment Standards Development Committee earlier this year. It delayed some six months before making public the final recommendations of the Information and Communication Standards Development Committee last year. It delayed over five months before making public the initial recommendations of the Health Care Standards Development Committee earlier this month. It has delayed over two months so far in making public the initial recommendations of the K-12 Education Standards Development Committee and Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee.

As a result, AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky has brought a court application, now pending, to seek an order compelling the Ford Government to obey the AODA. This is especially disturbing, because the Government is leading by such a poor example when it comes to the AODA. Its delay in complying with s. 10 of the AODA slows the already-slow process of developing and enacting or revising accessibility standards under the AODA.

7. The Ford Government Has for 3 Years Failed to Fulfil Its Mandatory Duty to Appoint A Standards Development Committee to Review the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard

The AODA required the Ontario Government to appoint a Standards Development Committee to review the Public Spaces Accessibility Standard by the end of 2017. Neither the previous Wynne Government nor the current Ford Government have fulfilled this legal duty. This is a mandatory AODA requirement.

The Ford Government has had three years in office to learn about this duty and to fulfil it. We flagged it for the Government very soon after it took office in 2018.

8. The Ford Government Has Made Public No Detailed Plan for Effective AODA Enforcement

During its three years in office, the Ford Government has announced no public plan to substantially strengthen the AODA’s weak enforcement. Three years ago, the Ford Government inherited the previous McGuinty Government’s and Wynne Government’s multi-year failure to effectively and vigourously enforce the AODA. What little enforcement that took place fell far short of what people with disabilities needed, as is confirmed in both the 2015 Moran Report and the 2019 Onley Report. The failure to effectively enforce the AODA has contributed to Ontario falling so far behind the goal of becoming accessible to people with disabilities by 2025.

 

9. In a Waste of Public Money, the Ford Government Diverted 1.3 Million Dollars into the Rick Hansen Foundation’s Controversial Private Accessibility Certification Process

The only significant new action that the Ford Government has announced on accessibility over its first three years in office was its announcement over two years ago in the April 11, 2019 Ontario Budget that it would spend 1.3 million public dollars over two years to have the Rick Hansen Foundation’s private accessibility certification process “certify” some 250 buildings, belonging to business or the public sector, for accessibility. In two years, this has not been shown to lead to the removal or prevention of a single barrier against people with disabilities anywhere in the built environment. It has predictably been a waste of public money.

The Ford Government did not consult the AODA Alliance or, to our knowledge, the disability community, before embarking on this wasteful project. It ignored serious concerns with spending public money on such a private accessibility certification process. These concerns have been public for well over five years. The Ford Government gave no public reasons for rejecting these concerns.

A private accessibility certification risks misleading the public, including people with disabilities. It also risks misleading the organization that seeks this so-called certification. It “certifies” nothing.

A private organization might certify a building as accessible, and yet people with disabilities may well find that the building itself, or the services offered in the building, still have serious accessibility problems. Such a certification provides no defence to an accessibility complaint or proceeding under the AODA, under the Ontario Building Code, under a municipal bylaw, under the Ontario Human Rights Code, or under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

If an organization gets a good -level accessibility certification, it may think they have done all they need to do on accessibility. The public, including people with disabilities, and design professionals may be misled to think that this is a model of accessibility to be emulated, and that it is a place that will be easy to fully access. This can turn out not to be the case, especially if the assessor uses the Rick Hansen Foundation’s insufficient standard to assess accessibility, and/or if it does not do an accurate job of assessing the building and/or if the assessor’s only training is the inadequate short training that the Rick Hansen Foundation created.

For example, the Ford Government got the Rick Hansen Foundation to certify as accessible the huge New Toronto Courthouse now under construction. Yet we have shown that its plans are replete with serious accessibility problems. The Rick Hansen Foundation’s assessor never contacted the AODA Alliance to find out about our serious concerns with the courthouse’s design before giving it a rating of “accessible.”

The Rick Hansen Foundation’s private accessibility certification process lacks much-needed public accountability. The public has no way to know if the private accessibility assessor is making accurate assessments. It is not subject to Freedom of Information laws. It operates behind closed doors. It lacks the kind of public accountability that applies to a government audit or inspection or other enforcement. For more details on the problems with private accessibility certification processes, read the AODA Alliance’s February 1, 2016 brief on the problems with publicly funding any private accessibility certification process.

10. The Ford Government Unfairly Burdened Ontarians with Disabilities with Having to Fight Against New Barriers Being Created by Municipalities Allowing Electric Scooters

It is bad enough that the Ford Government did too little in its first three years in office to tear down the many existing barriers that impede people with disabilities. It is even worse that the Government took action that will create new disability barriers, and against which people with disabilities must organize to battle at the municipal level.

When the Ford Government took office in June 2018, it was illegal to ride electric scooters (e-scooters) in public places. In January 2019, over the strenuous objection of Ontario’s disability community, the Ford Government passed a new regulation. It lets each municipality permit the use of e-scooters in public places, if they wish. It did not require municipalities to protect people with disabilities from the dangers that e-scooters pose to them.

Silent, high-speed e-scooters racing towards pedestrians at over 20 KPH, ridden by an unlicensed, untrained, uninsured joy-riders, endanger people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. Leaving e-scooters strewn all over in public places, as happens in other cities that permit them, creates physical barriers to people using wheelchairs and walkers. They create tripping hazards for people with vision loss.

Torontonians with disabilities had to mount a major campaign to convince Toronto City Council to reject the idea of allowing e-scooters. They were up against a feeding-frenzy of well-funded and well-connected corporate lobbyists, the lobbyists who clearly hold sway with the Ontario Premier’s office.

Unlike Toronto, Ottawa and Windsor have allowed e-scooters, disregarding the danger they now pose for people with disabilities. Some other Ontario cities are considering allowing them.

Thanks to the Ford Government, people with disabilities must now campaign against e-scooters, city by city. This is a huge, unfair burden that people with disabilities did not need, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is a cruel irony that the Ford Government unleashed the danger of personal injuries by e-scooters at the same time as it has said it wants to reduce the number of concussions in Ontario.

11. The Ford Government’s Rhetoric Has Been Harmfully Diluting the AODA’s Goal of Full Accessibility

A core feature of the AODA is that it requires Ontario become “accessible” to people with disabilities by 2025. It does not merely say that Ontario should become “more accessible” by that deadline.

Yet, the Ford Government too often only talks about making Ontario more accessible. In fairness, the previous Ontario Liberal Government under Premier Dalton McGuinty and later Premier Kathleen Wynne too often did the same.

This dilutes the goal of the AODA, for which people with disabilities fought so hard for a decade. It hurts people with disabilities. It is no doubt used to try to lower expectations and over-inflate any accomplishments.

 

12. The Ford Government Has Given Public Voice to False Troubling Stereotypes About Disability Accessibility

 

Two years ago, the Ford Government publicly voiced very troubling and harmful stereotypes about the AODA and disability accessibility during National AccessAbility Week.

In 2019, during National AccessAbility Week, NDP MPP Joel Harden proposed a that the Legislature pass a resolution that called for the Government to bring forward a plan in response to the Onley Report. The resolution was worded in benign and non-partisan words, which in key ways tracked Doug Ford’s May 15, 2018 letter to the AODA Alliance. The proposed resolution stated:

“That, in the opinion of this House, the Government of Ontario should release a plan of action on accessibility in response to David Onley’s review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act that includes, but is not limited to, a commitment to implement new standards for the built environment, stronger enforcement of the Act, accessibility training for design professionals, and an assurance that public money is never again used to create new accessibility barriers.”

Premier Ford had every good reason to support this proposed resolution, as we explained in the June 10, 2019 AODA Alliance Update. Yet, as described in detail in the June 11, 2019 AODA Alliance Update, the Doug Ford Government used its majority in the Legislature to defeat this resolution on May 30, 2019, right in the middle of National Access Abilities Week.

The speeches by Conservative MPPs in the Legislature on the Government’s behalf, in opposition to that motion, voiced false and harmful stereotypes about disability accessibility. Those statements in effect called into serious question the Ford Government’s commitment to the effective implementation and enforcement of the AODA. They denigrated the creation and enforcement of AODA accessibility standards as red tape that threatened to imperil businesses and hurt people with disabilities.

13. The Ford Government Has Failed to Effectively Address the Urgent Needs of Ontarians with Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic

All of the foregoing would be enough in ordinary times to merit the “F” grade which the Ford Government is here awarded. However, its treatment of people with disabilities and their accessibility needs during the COVID-19 pandemic makes that grade all the more deserved.

In the earliest weeks, the Government deserved a great deal of leeway for responding to the pandemic, because it was understandably caught off guard, as was the world, by the enormity of this nightmare. However, even well after the initial shock period when the pandemic hit and for the year or more since then, the Ford Government has systemically failed to effectively address the distinctive and heightened urgent needs of people with disabilities in the pandemic.

People with disabilities were foreseeably exposed to disproportionately contract COVID-19, to suffer its worst hardships and to die from it. Yet too often the Government took a failed “one size fits all” approach to its emergency planning, that failed to address the urgent needs of people with disabilities. This issue has preoccupied the work of the AODA Alliance and many other disability organizations over the past 14 months.

Two of the areas where the Government most obviously failed were in health care and education. This is especially inexcusable since the Government had the benefit of a Health Care Standards Development Committee, a K-12 Education Standards Development Committee and a Post-Secondary Education Standards Development Committee to give the Government ideas and advice throughout the pandemic. The K-12 Education Standards Development Committee delivered a detailed package of recommendations for the pandemic response four months into the pandemic. Yet those recommendations have largely if not totally gone unimplemented.

The Government repeatedly left it to each school board, college, university, and health care provider to each separately figure out what disability barriers had arisen during the pandemic, and how to remove and prevent those barriers. This is a predictable formula for wasteful duplication of effort, for increased costs and workloads, all in the middle of a pandemic.

For example, the Ford Government largely left it to each frontline teacher and principal to figure out how to accommodate the recurring needs of students with different disabilities during distance learning. The Government relied on TVO as a major partner in delivering distance learning to school students, even though TVO’s distance learning offerings have accessibility barriers that are unforgivable at any time, and especially during a pandemic.

As another example, the Ford Government did not properly plan to ensure that the process for booking and arranging a COVID-19 vaccine was disability-accessible. There is no specific accessible booking hotline to help people with disabilities navigate the booking process from beginning to end.

There is no assurance that drug stores or others through whom vaccines can be booked have accessible websites. We have received complaints that the Government’s own online booking portal has accessibility problems. Arranging for a barrier-free vaccination for People with Disabilities is even harder than the public is finding for just booking a vaccination for those with no disabilities.

14. The Lives of Vulnerable People with Disabilities are Endangered by the Ford Government’s Secret Plans for Critical Care Triage During the COVID-19 Pandemic, If Hospitals Cannot Serve All Critical Care Patients

The AODA Alliance, working together with other disability organizations, has also had to devote a great deal of effort to try to combat the danger that vulnerable people with disabilities would face disability discrimination in access to life-saving critical care if the pandemic overloads hospitals, leading to critical care triage. The Ford Government has created new disability barriers by allowing clear disability discrimination to be entrenched in Ontario’s critical care triage protocol. Even though formal critical care triage has not yet been directed, there is a real danger that it has occurred on the front lines without proper public accountability e.g. by ambulance crews declining to offer critical care to some patients at roadside, when called via 911.

The Ford Government has allowed a concerted disinformation campaign to be led by those who designed the Ontario critical care triage protocol, and who are falsely claiming that there is no disability discrimination in that protocol.

Further Background

Further background on all of the issues addressed in this report card can be found on the AODA Alliance’s web site. It has separate pages, linked to its home page, addressing such topics as accessibility issues in transportation, health care, education, information and communication, the built environment, AODA enforcement, and disability issues arising during the COVID-19 pandemic, among others. Follow @aodaalliance



Source link

Feeding Frenzy by Corporate Lobbyist Continues at Toronto City Hall to Pressure City Council to Permit Electric Scooters Despite Their Proven Dangers to Vulnerable People with Disabilities, Seniors, Children and Others


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Feeding Frenzy by Corporate Lobbyist Continues at Toronto City Hall to Pressure City Council to Permit Electric Scooters Despite Their Proven Dangers to Vulnerable People with Disabilities, Seniors, Children and Others

April 23, 2021 Toronto: Toronto City Hall continues to be the target of a relentless high-price, well-connected feeding frenzy by corporate lobbyists for electric scooter rental companies. This is despite overwhelming proof that e-scooters endanger vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others, and create serious new accessibility barriers for people with disabilities. Today, the AODA Alliance releases updated documentation proving just how extensive this corporate lobbyists’ feeding frenzy is.

From June 2018 to the present, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have had a staggering 1,711 contacts across City Hall. That includes them having fully 124 contacts with Toronto Mayor John Tory or his office. All those contacts are listed below, filling a breath-taking 87 single-spaced pages. They are all taken from the Toronto Lobbyists Registry.

On October 30, 2020, The AODA Alliance released a detailed report, documenting the extent of this orgy of e-scooter corporate lobbying up to that date. Today’s Update brings that report up to date.

It is clear that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have kept up their non-stop inundation of City Hall since October 2020. For a more detailed analysis of the data up to the end of October, read the AODA Alliance’s October 30, 2021 report on the e-scooter corporate lobbying feeding frenzy in Toronto.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021, the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee will consider what to do about e-scooters. Right now it is illegal to ride them in public in Toronto. Disability organizations and advocates are urging Toronto City Council not to lift that ban, and not to conduct a pilot project with e-scooters in Toronto.

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021, a compelling report was made public by Toronto City staff. That City staff report recommended that e-scooters not be allowed, and that no e-scooter pilot be conducted. It based this on the fact that e-scooters pose a safety danger to the public, including people with disabilities among others. They would also create new accessibility barriers. That City Staff report found that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have not proposed any workable and effective solutions to these dangers.

The Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee has twice passed unanimous recommendations to Toronto City Council, that e-scooters not be allowed, on February 3, 2020 and February 25, 2021. In its most recent decision on point, the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee said there should be no e-scooters allowed, whether rental or private owned, that no e-scooter pilot should be conducted, and that Toronto authorities should enforce the current ban on e-scooters. Disability organizations and advocates strongly support those recommendations.

Mayor John Tory and some members of City Council have been holding off taking a public position on e-scooters until they received a report and recommendation from City staff. They now have a strong City Staff report and recommendation categorically saying that Toronto should say no to e-scooters. We call on Mayor Tory and all City Council members to do just that.

On March 30, 2021, the AODA Alliance made public a comprehensive brief to the City of Toronto on e-scooters. It shows why Toronto must not permit them. It also shows that e-scooter corporate lobbyists, who are behind the push for e-scooters, have made claims about e-scooters that are false, misleading and transparently meritless.

This now boils down to a stark and simple question for Mayor Tory and City Council: Will they stand up for vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others, whom e-scooters endanger? Will they stand up instead for the e-scooter corporate lobbyists, or will they stand up to the corporate lobbyists?

We have heard from some on City Council and from their staffers that the biggest corporate lobbying effort now going on at City Hall is by the e-scooter corporate lobbyists. The more these corporate lobbyists carry on with this, the more this shows the stark choice that Mayor Tory and City Council has, between listening to people with disabilities or simply serving the interest of the corporate lobbyists.

Below we set out an article on this issue in the April 22, 2021 Toronto Star, which quotes the AODA Alliance. We also set out all the entries in the Toronto Lobbyist Registry on this issue since June 2018.

For more information on the dangers presented by e-scooters, visit the AODA Alliance’s e-scooter web page and the March 30, 2021 AODA Alliance report to City Hall on e-scooters. Also check out the AODA Alliances short online video that describes the dangers that e-scooters pose, especially to vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors and children. That video has already been viewed over 1,000 times.

Toronto Star April 22, 2021

Originally posted at https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/04/21/toronto-should-not-allow-wider-use-of-e-scooters-says-city-staff.html#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20current%20regulations%20that%20prohibit,associated%20costs%2C%E2%80%9D%20staff%20wrote

Greater Toronto

City staff recommend not allowing e-scooters

Ben Spurr Toronto Star

City staff are recommending council stay out of the province’s e-scooter pilot project, a decision that would effectively shut the door on legalizing the use of the peppy two-wheeled vehicles on Toronto’s streets.

In a report released Wednesday, city transportation staff said that “based on extensive research and feedback,” they had concluded the problems related to accessibility, safety and insurance posed by e-scooters “remain unresolved,” and solutions proposed by the industry “are not satisfactory.”

“The current regulations that prohibit the use of e-scooters in public spaces make sense as they will prevent an increase in street and sidewalk-related injuries and fatalities, and their associated costs,” staff wrote.

The report will be debated next Wednesday at the city’s infrastructure and environment committee before going to council, which will have final say on whether to approve the recommendation.

E-scooters are motorized, battery-powered versions of the familiar kick-style children’s toy. In recent years, they have enjoyed a boom in popularity around the world, for both private use and as part of app-enabled e-scooter sharing programs. Proponents say they’re an effective “micromobility” solution that could help reduce reliance on polluting vehicles.

But their rapid rise has been met with pushback, and some cities banned them after complaints about riders leaving the vehicles littered on sidewalks and other public spaces at the end of their trips.

The staff report concluded the city lacks sufficient enforcement resources to ensure e-scooters aren’t used on sidewalks, and there are problems securing insurance to cover injuries suffered by riders or pedestrians. It also echoed disability advocates who have warned the vehicles pose hazards to people with mobility issues, who are at risk of tripping over e-scooters if they’re left in the street, or being struck by riders improperly using them on sidewalks.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Accessibility For Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, urged council to follow city staff’s advice. Council “should stand up for people with disabilities and must stand up to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists,” he said.

Jonathan Hopkins, director of strategic development for Lime, said the new staff report “sells the city short” and the company hopes council “has more faith in the city of Toronto and its ability to do world class things.”

Report of All Contacts by E-scooter Corporate Lobbyists with Toronto City Hall from June 2018 to April 2021, Recorded in the Toronto Lobbyists Registry

 Bird Canada

  1. January 21, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  2. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  3. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  4. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  5. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  6. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  7. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  8. November 3, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  9. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  10. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  11. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  12. July 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  13. October 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  14. March 26, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  15. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  16. January 28, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  17. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  18. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  19. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  20. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  21. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  22. June 4, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  23. December 11, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  24. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  25. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  26. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  27. September 25, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  28. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  29. February 11, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  30. April 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  31. April 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  32. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  33. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  34. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  35. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  36. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  37. December 4, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  38. November 1, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  39. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  40. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  41. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  42. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  43. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  44. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  45. April 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Anthony Tersigni of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  46. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Anthony Tersigni of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  47. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternack, a Staff of Member of Council.
  48. February 11, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternack, a Staff of Member of Council.
  49. April 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  50. April 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  51. April 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  52. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  53. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  54. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  55. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  56. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  57. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  58. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  59. July 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  60. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  61. October 21, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  62. October 23, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  63. November 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  64. November 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  65. December 4, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  66. September 5, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of The Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  67. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of The Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  68. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  69. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  70. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  71. February 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  72. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  73. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  74. May 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  75. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  76. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  77. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  78. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  79. July 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  80. September 14, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  81. September 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  82. October 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  83. November 13, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  84. November 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  85. November 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  86. December 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  87. February 16, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  88. March 30, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  89. November 12, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with David Bellmore of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  90. July 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  91. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  92. July 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  93. July 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  94. November 13, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  95. November 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  96. December 22, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  97. February 16, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  98. March 30, 2021, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  99. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Michael Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  100. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Michael Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  101. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Denzil Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  102. December 11, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  103. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  104. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  105. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lisa Hoffman of Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  106. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  107. July 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  108. July 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  109. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  110. May 30, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  111. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias deDovitiis of Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  112. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias deDovitiis of Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  113. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Ana Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  114. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Ana Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  115. March 26, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Nick Dominelli of Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  116. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nick Dominelli of Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  117. November 1, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Rachel Scott of Office of Councillor Peruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  118. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  119. May 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  120. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  121. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  122. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Rishab Mehan of Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  123. January 28, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  124. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  125. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  126. May 6, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  127. May 8, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  128. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  129. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Tristan Downe-Dewdney of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  130. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  131. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  132. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  133. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Urban Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  134. October 21, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Urban Planning, Assistant Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  135. May 19, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of Local Board.
  136. June 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of Local Board.
  137. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Vice-President, Stakeholder Relations of CreateTO, an Employee of Local Board.
  138. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Director of Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  139. June 17, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Director, Transaction Services of Corporate Real Estate Management, an Employee of the City.
  140. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  141. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  142. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  143. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  144. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  145. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  146. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  147. October 25, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  148. November 26, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  149. November 27, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  150. November 28, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  151. December 10, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  152. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  153. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  154. January 10, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  155. January 20, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  156. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  157. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  158. April 7, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  159. April 24, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  160. May 25, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  161. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  162. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  163. October 22, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  164. December 13, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  165. December 16, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  166. February 5, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  167. March 27, 2020, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  168. September 18, 2019, Stewart Lyons, Senior Officer of Bird Canada, met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People, Equity & Human Rights, an Employee of the City.
  169. September 30, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, an Member of Council.
  170. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  171. October 22, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  172. October 25, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  173. January 10, 2020, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Manager, Street Furniture Management, City Wide of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  174. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  175. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  176. October 22, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Snr Project Mgr, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  177. September 18, 2019, Ryan Lausman of Bird Canada, Met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People, Equity & Human Rights, an Employee of the City.
  178. January 28, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  179. February 3, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  180. April 7, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  181. February 11, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  182. February 11, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with Aytakin Mohammadi of James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  183. February 5, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  184. January 28, 2020, Austin Spademan of Bird Canada, Met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  185. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  186. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  187. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  188. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  189. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  190. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  191. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  192. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  193. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  194. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  195. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  196. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  197. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  198. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  199. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  200. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  201. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  202. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  203. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  204. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  205. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  206. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  207. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  208. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  209. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  210. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  211. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  212. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  213. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  214. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  215. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  216. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  217. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  218. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  219. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  220. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  221. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  222. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  223. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  224. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  225. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  226. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  227. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  228. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  229. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  230. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  231. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  232. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  233. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  234. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  235. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  236. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  237. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  238. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  239. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  240. December 29, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  241. January 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  242. February 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  243. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  244. March 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  245. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  246. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  247. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  248. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  249. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  250. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  251. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  252. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  253. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  254. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  255. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  256. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  257. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  258. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  259. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  260. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  261. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  262. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  263. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  264. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  265. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  266. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  267. December 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  268. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  269. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  270. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  271. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  272. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  273. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  274. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  275. November 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  276. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  277. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  278. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  279. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  280. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  281. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  282. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  283. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  284. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  285. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  286. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aaron Prance of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  287. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  288. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  289. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  290. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Adrian Martins of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  291. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  292. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  293. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  294. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  295. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Alex Amelin of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  296. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  297. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  298. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  299. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  300. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Andrew Athanasiu of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  301. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  302. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  303. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  304. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Antonette Dinovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  305. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ashley Millman of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  306. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  307. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  308. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  309. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  310. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  311. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  312. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  313. November 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  314. November 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  315. December 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  316. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  317. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  318. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  319. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  320. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  321. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  322. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  323. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  324. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  325. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brett McCandless of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  326. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  327. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  328. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  329. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  330. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  331. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  332. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  333. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  334. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  335. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  336. September 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  337. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  338. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  339. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  340. November 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  341. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  342. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  343. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  344. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  345. February 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  346. February 26, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  347. March 16, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  348. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  349. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  350. April 1, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  351. April 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  352. April 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  353. April 12, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  354. April 14, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  355. April 15, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  356. April 19, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to, Text message Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  357. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  358. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  359. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Daryl Finlayson of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  360. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Diana Gonzalez of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  361. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  362. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  363. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  364. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  365. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  366. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  367. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  368. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  369. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  370. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  371. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  372. February 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  373. February 26, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  374. March 16, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  375. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  376. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  377. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  378. July 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  379. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  380. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  381. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  382. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  383. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  384. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  385. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  386. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  387. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Murphy of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  388. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Murphy of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  389. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to James Murphy of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  390. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Luke-Smith of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  391. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  392. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  393. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Monk of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  394. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  395. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  396. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  397. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  398. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  399. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  400. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  401. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  402. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  403. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joan Wilson of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  404. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  405. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  406. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  407. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  408. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  409. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  410. December 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  411. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  412. January 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  413. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  414. January 28, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  415. February 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  416. February 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  417. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  418. March 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  419. March 12, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  420. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  421. March 25, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  422. March 29, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  423. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  424. April 14, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  425. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  426. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  427. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  428. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  429. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  430. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Office of Councillor Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  431. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Office of Councillor Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  432. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  433. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  434. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lesley Burlie of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  435. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  436. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  437. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  438. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  439. September 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  440. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  441. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  442. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  443. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  444. February 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  445. March 16, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  446. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  447. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  448. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  449. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  450. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  451. December 29, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  452. January 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  453. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  454. January 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  455. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Markus Obrien-Fehr of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  456. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Markus Obrien-Fehr of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  457. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  458. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  459. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  460. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  461. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  462. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  463. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  464. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  465. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  466. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  467. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Michael Giles of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  468. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  469. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  470. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  471. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  472. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Miran Markovic of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  473. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Monique Lisi of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  474. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Monique Lisi of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  475. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Monique Lisi of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  476. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Mustapha Khamissa of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  477. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Dominelli of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  478. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Nicholas Dominelli of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  479. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  480. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  481. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Nicholas Gallant of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  482. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Olivia Klasios of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  483. November 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Parker Samuels of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  484. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Parker Samuels of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  485. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Parker Samuels of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  486. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  487. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  488. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  489. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  490. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  491. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  492. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  493. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  494. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  495. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  496. November 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  497. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  498. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  499. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rebecca Guida of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  500. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rebecca Guida of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  501. July 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  502. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  503. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  504. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  505. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  506. August 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  507. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  508. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  509. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  510. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  511. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  512. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  513. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  514. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  515. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  516. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  517. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  518. January 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  519. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  520. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  521. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  522. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  523. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  524. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  525. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  526. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  527. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  528. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  529. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  530. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  531. October 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  532. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  533. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  534. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  535. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  536. March 29, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  537. March 30, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  538. April 14, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  539. April 19, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, Text message Scott Morphet of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  540. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  541. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  542. July 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  543. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  544. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  545. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  546. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Shima Bhana of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  547. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  548. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  549. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  550. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  551. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  552. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  553. July 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  554. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  555. July 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  556. July 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  557. July 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  558. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  559. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  560. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  561. December 29, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  562. January 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  563. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  564. February 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  565. February 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  566. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  567. February 26, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  568. March 4, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  569. March 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  570. March 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  571. March 22, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  572. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  573. July 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  574. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  575. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  576. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  577. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Tom Gleason of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  578. December 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Tom Gleason of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  579. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Tom Gleason of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  580. July 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Trent Jennett of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  581. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Trent Jennett of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  582. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  583. December 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  584. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  585. January 8, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  586. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  587. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Pape Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  588. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Emery Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  589. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Dupont by the Castle BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  590. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Duke Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  591. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Downtown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  592. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Corso Italia BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  593. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of College West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  594. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of College Promenade BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  595. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Lakeshore BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  596. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Leslieville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  597. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Italy BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  598. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Portugal on Dundas BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  599. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of St. Lawrence Market BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  600. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Midtown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  601. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Mirvish Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  602. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Ossington Avenue BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  603. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Cityplace Fort York BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  604. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Chinatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  605. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Cabbagetown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  606. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Broadview Danforth BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  607. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Bloorcourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  608. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Bloor-Yorkville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  609. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Bloor Annex BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  610. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Regal Heights Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  611. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Riverside BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  612. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Wychwood Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  613. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Yonge + St. Clair BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  614. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of York-Eglinton BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  615. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Gerrard India Bazaar BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  616. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Greektown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  617. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Hillcrest Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  618. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Kennedy Road BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  619. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Koreatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  620. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Rosedale BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  621. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of St. Clair Gardens BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  622. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of MarkeTo BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  623. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Beach Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  624. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of The Eglinton Way BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  625. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Waterfront BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  626. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Village of Islington BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  627. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of West Queen West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  628. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  629. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  630. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Parkdale Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  631. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  632. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  633. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  634. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  635. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  636. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  637. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  638. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  639. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  640. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  641. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  642. July 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  643. November 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  644. March 10, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  645. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  646. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  647. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  648. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  649. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  650. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  651. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Associate Lead – Government & Financial Renewal of Toronto Office of Recovery & Rebuild, an Employee of the City.
  652. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Coordinator of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  653. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  654. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  655. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  656. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  657. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  658. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  659. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  660. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  661. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  662. February 24, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  663. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  664. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  665. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  666. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  667. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  668. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  669. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  670. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  671. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Office of Mayor Tory, an Employee of the City.
  672. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  673. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  674. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  675. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  676. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  677. October 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  678. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  679. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  680. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  681. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  682. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  683. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  684. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  685. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  686. August 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  687. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  688. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  689. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  690. September 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  691. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  692. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  693. September 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  694. September 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  695. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  696. October 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  697. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  698. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  699. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  700. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  701. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  702. January 20, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  703. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  704. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  705. February 24, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  706. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  707. April 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  708. April 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  709. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  710. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  711. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  712. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  713. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  714. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  715. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  716. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  717. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  718. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  719. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  720. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  721. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Lead of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  722. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  723. July 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  724. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  725. July 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  726. July 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  727. July 30, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  728. July 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  729. August 12, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  730. August 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  731. August 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  732. August 31, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  733. September 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  734. September 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  735. September 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  736. September 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  737. September 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  738. September 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  739. October 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  740. October 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  741. October 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  742. October 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  743. November 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  744. December 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  745. December 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  746. January 5, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  747. January 6, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  748. January 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  749. January 20, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  750. February 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  751. February 11, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  752. February 17, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  753. February 24, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  754. March 3, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  755. April 7, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  756. April 9, 2021, Chris Schafer of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  757. October 21, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  758. October 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  759. November 5, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  760. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  761. January 11, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  762. October 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  763. October 26, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  764. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, text Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  765. February 4, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  766. November 4, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  767. November 3, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  768. October 20, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  769. October 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Andrew Athanasiu of Josh Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  770. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  771. January 11, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Brent Gilliard of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  772. November 27, 2020, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, made a telephone call to Luke Robertson of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  773. February 4, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  774. January 8, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  775. January 11, 2021, Mr. John Bitove of Bird Canada, sent an e-mail to Wyndham Bettencourt-McCarthy of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.

 Crestview Strategy

  1. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  2. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  3. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  4. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  5. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  6. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  7. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  8. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  9. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  10. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  11. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  12. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  13. September 29, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  14. October 23, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  15. November 3, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  16. October 16, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Daryl Finlayson of Councillor Paula Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  17. October 16, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with Nicolas Valverde of Councillor Paula Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  18. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Administrator of Uptown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  19. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Danforth Mosaic BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  20. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Gerrard India Bazaar BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  21. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Leslieville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  22. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Kennedy Road BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  23. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of CityPlace and Fort York BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  24. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Ossington Avenue BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  25. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Queen Street West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  26. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Trinity Bellwoods BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  27. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Portugal On Dundas BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  28. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Oakwood Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  29. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Regal Heights Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  30. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of St. Clair Gardens BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  31. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Little Italy BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  32. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Mirvish Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  33. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Rosedale Main Street BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  34. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Yonge & St. Clair, an Employee of Local Board.
  35. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Dovercourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  36. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Dupont by the Castle BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  37. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Kensington Market BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  38. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Korea Town BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  39. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of The Eglinton Way BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  40. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Yonge Lawrence Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  41. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of College Promenade BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  42. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Corso Italia BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  43. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to BIA Coordinator of Village of Islington BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  44. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Danforth Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  45. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of The Beach BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  46. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of DuKe Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  47. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Emery Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  48. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Fairbank Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  49. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of MarkeTO District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  50. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Harbord Street BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  51. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of GreekTown on the Danforth BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  52. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Pape Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  53. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Riverside District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  54. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Wilson Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  55. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of College West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  56. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Dovercourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  57. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Chair of Hillcrest Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  58. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Liberty Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  59. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Parkdale Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  60. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of St. Lawrence Market Neighbourhood BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  61. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of The Waterfront BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  62. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of West Queen West BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  63. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  64. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Broadview Danforth BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  65. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Wexford Heights BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  66. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Sheppard East Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  67. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  68. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Bloor Annex BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  69. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Bloor-Yorkville BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  70. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to ED of Downtown Yonge BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  71. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of York-Eglinton BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  72. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of Bloorcourt Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  73. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of Bloordale Village BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  74. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Manager of Chinatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  75. September 30, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, sent an e-mail to Operations Manager of Chinatown BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  76. October 15, 2020, Jaskaran Sandhu, Senior Consultant of Crestview Strategy, met with General Manager of Economic Development and Culture, an Employee of the City.

 Lyft Canada Inc.

  1. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Deputy CEO of TTC, an Employee of Local Board.
  2. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  3. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Project, Design & Management of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  4. September 23, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  5. September 18, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. November 24, 2020, Hannah Parish of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  7. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Deputy CEO of TTC, an Employee of Local Board.
  8. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  9. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Project Design & Management of Transportation, an Employee of the City.
  10. September 23, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  11. November 24, 2020, Tom Divito of Lyft Canada Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Neutron Holdings Inc.

  1. July 26, 2018, Nico Probst of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Rachel Van Fraassen of Office of Councillor Jaye Robinson, Ward 25, a Staff of Member of Council.
  2. July 26, 2018, Nico Probst of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Siri Agrell of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  3. June 18, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jon Burnside of Ward 26 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  4. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Christin Carmichael Greb of Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  5. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 19 Trinity-Spadina, a Member of Council.
  6. April 15, 2020, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  7. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Gord Perks of Ward 14 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  8. June 18, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Michael Thompson of Ward 37 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  9. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Cycling Infras & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  10. June 20, 2018, Gabriel Scheer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  11. April 21, 2020, Mr. Calvin Thigpen of Neutron Holdings Inc., Webinar James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  12. April 21, 2020, Mr. Calvin Thigpen of Neutron Holdings Inc., Webinar Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  13. July 7, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  14. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  15. January 10, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  16. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  17. January 10, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  18. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy and Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  19. October 22, 2019, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  20. January 10, 2020, Mr. Michael Markevich of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  21. April 29, 2020, Ms. Katie Stevens of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  22. April 29, 2020, Ms. Katie Stevens of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  23. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  24. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  25. October 7, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  26. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  27. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  28. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  29. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  30. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  31. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  32. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  33. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  34. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  35. April 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  36. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  37. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  38. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  39. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  40. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  41. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  42. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  43. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  44. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  45. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  46. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  47. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  48. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  49. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  50. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  51. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  52. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  53. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  54. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  55. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  56. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  57. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  58. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  59. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  60. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  61. April 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  62. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  63. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  64. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  65. March 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  66. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  67. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  68. April 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  69. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  70. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  71. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  72. April 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  73. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  74. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  75. October 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  76. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  77. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  78. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  79. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  80. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  81. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  82. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  83. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  84. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  85. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  86. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  87. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  88. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  89. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  90. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  91. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  92. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  93. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  94. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  95. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  96. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  97. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  98. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  99. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  100. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  101. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  102. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  103. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  104. August 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  105. August 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  106. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  107. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  108. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  109. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  110. March 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  111. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  112. April 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  113. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  114. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  115. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  116. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  117. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  118. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  119. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  120. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  121. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  122. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  123. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  124. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  125. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  126. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  127. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  128. March 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., Social Media Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  129. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  130. April 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Abdullah Sherif of Office of Councillor Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  131. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Office of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  132. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  133. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  134. February 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  135. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  136. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ani Dergalstanian of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  137. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Ferrari of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  138. March 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Anthony Tersigni of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  139. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  140. February 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  141. October 7, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Office of Councillor Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  142. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  143. March 9, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  144. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  145. April 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  146. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  147. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  148. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  149. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  150. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  151. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  152. April 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  153. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brandon Stevens of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  154. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brett.McCandless of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  155. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Office of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  156. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  157. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  158. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  159. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Courtney Glen of Mayor’s Office, a Staff of Member of Council.
  160. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  161. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  162. July 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  163. July 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  164. August 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  165. September 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  166. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  167. September 17, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  168. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  169. October 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  170. October 17, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  171. October 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  172. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  173. November 7, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  174. November 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  175. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  176. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  177. February 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Office of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  178. February 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  179. February 14, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  180. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  181. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  182. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  183. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  184. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor John Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  185. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Diana Carella of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  186. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Diana Carella of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  187. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Dino Alic of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  188. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Dino Alic of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  189. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Fertaa Yieleh-Chireh of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  190. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  191. April 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  192. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  193. April 16, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  194. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  195. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hilary Burke of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  196. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hilary Burke of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  197. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ihor Wons of Office of Councillor Thompson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  198. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  199. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  200. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  201. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jacob Katz of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  202. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Luke-Smith of Office of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  203. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Luke-Smith of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  204. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  205. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  206. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  207. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  208. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  209. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with John Sinclair of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  210. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  211. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  212. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jonathan Kent of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  213. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Office of Councillor Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  214. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  215. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Office of Councillor Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  216. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lesley Burlie of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  217. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lia Brewer of Office of Councillor Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  218. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lisa Rainford of Office of Councillor Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  219. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lola Dandybaeva of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  220. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  221. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  222. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  223. February 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  224. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  225. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  226. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  227. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  228. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Marco Bianchi of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  229. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  230. March 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  231. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  232. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  233. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Megan Poole of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  234. September 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  235. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Office of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  236. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  237. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  238. March 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Michelle Zaslavsky of Councillor Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  239. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nicholas Dominelli of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  240. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of Member of Council.
  241. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of Member of Council.
  242. March 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Office of Councillor Karygiannis, a Staff of Member of Council.
  243. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  244. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  245. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  246. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Office of Councillor Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  247. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  248. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  249. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  250. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rachel Thompson of Office of Councillor Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  251. April 3, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  252. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rishab Mehan of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  253. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robert Cerjanec of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  254. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robert Cerjanec of Office of Councillor Bailao, a Staff of Member of Council.
  255. March 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  256. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Office of Councillor Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  257. February 11, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  258. February 18, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  259. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  260. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  261. November 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rohan Balram of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  262. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Rohan Balram of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  263. April 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Ryan Lo of Office of Councillor Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  264. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  265. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  266. April 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  267. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Office of Councillor McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  268. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  269. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  270. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  271. February 27, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  272. February 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Samantha Vite of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  273. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  274. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  275. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Office of Councillor Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  276. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Office of Councillor Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  277. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shima Bhana of Office of Councillor Ford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  278. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Office of Councillor Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  279. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  280. March 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  281. April 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  282. April 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  283. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  284. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  285. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  286. October 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  287. February 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  288. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  289. March 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  290. March 25, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  291. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  292. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  293. March 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  294. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  295. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Baker of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  296. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  297. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Office of Councillor Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  298. July 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  299. November 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  300. November 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to William Burtch of Office of Councillor Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  301. May 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mostafa Omran of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), a Member of Local Board.
  302. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  303. April 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  304. April 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to BIA Planner of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  305. October 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  306. October 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  307. October 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  308. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  309. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  310. April 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  311. April 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  312. April 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Executive Director of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  313. February 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Bike Share of Toronto Parking Authority, an Employee of Local Board.
  314. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Bike Share of Toronto Parking Authority, an Employee of Local Board.
  315. October 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  316. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  317. April 22, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  318. April 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Planning and Advocacy Manager of Toronto Financial District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  319. October 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  320. April 28, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Urban Planning Manager of Toronto Entertainment District BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  321. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  322. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  323. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  324. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Acting Director, Transport. Infrastructure Mgmt. of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  325. November 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Administrative Assistant 2 of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  326. November 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Administrative Assistant 2 of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  327. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  328. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  329. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  330. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  331. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  332. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  333. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  334. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  335. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  336. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  337. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  338. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  339. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  340. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  341. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  342. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  343. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  344. April 8, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Economic Support and Recovery of Economic Development & Culture, an Employee of the City.
  345. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Economic Support and Recovery of Economic Development & Culture, an Employee of the City.
  346. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  347. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  348. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  349. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  350. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  351. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  352. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  353. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  354. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  355. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  356. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  357. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  358. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  359. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  360. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  361. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  362. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  363. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  364. February 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  365. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  366. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  367. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  368. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  369. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  370. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  371. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  372. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  373. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  374. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  375. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  376. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  377. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Director, Transportation Infrastructure Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  378. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Parks, Forestry & Recreation, an Employee of the City.
  379. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Fleet Services, an Employee of the City.
  380. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  381. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  382. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  383. January 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  384. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  385. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  386. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  387. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  388. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Cycling Infrastructure & Programs of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  389. January 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  390. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  391. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  392. May 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  393. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  394. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  395. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  396. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  397. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  398. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  399. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  400. February 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  401. February 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  402. February 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  403. March 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  404. April 15, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  405. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  406. May 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  407. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  408. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  409. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  410. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  411. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  412. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  413. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  414. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  415. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  416. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  417. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  418. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  419. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  420. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  421. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  422. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  423. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  424. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  425. November 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  426. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  427. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  428. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  429. December 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  430. December 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  431. December 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  432. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  433. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  434. January 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  435. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  436. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  437. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  438. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Transportation Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  439. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  440. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Program Designer (Toronto Urban Fellow) of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  441. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  442. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  443. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy & Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  444. May 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  445. June 10, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  446. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  447. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  448. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  449. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  450. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  451. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  452. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  453. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead Environment, Policy and Research of Environment & Energy, an Employee of the City.
  454. January 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  455. January 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  456. February 12, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  457. May 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Beautiful Streets of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  458. June 11, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  459. June 13, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  460. June 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  461. June 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  462. July 9, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  463. August 14, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  464. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Public Realm Section of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  465. August 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  466. August 20, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  467. August 21, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  468. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  469. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  470. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  471. September 30, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  472. October 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  473. October 8, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  474. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  475. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  476. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  477. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  478. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  479. November 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  480. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  481. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  482. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  483. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  484. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  485. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  486. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Policy & Research Officer of Municipal Licensing & Standards, an Employee of the City.
  487. October 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  488. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  489. October 23, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  490. October 25, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  491. October 28, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  492. October 29, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  493. November 1, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  494. November 5, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  495. November 26, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  496. November 27, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  497. December 2, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  498. December 3, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  499. December 4, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  500. December 16, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  501. December 24, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  502. January 6, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  503. January 7, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  504. January 10, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with, sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  505. January 17, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  506. February 4, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  507. February 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  508. February 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  509. February 20, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  510. February 26, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  511. March 2, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  512. March 5, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  513. March 19, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call, and sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  514. March 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  515. April 1, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  516. April 15, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  517. April 21, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  518. April 23, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  519. April 24, 2020, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, Public Realm Section, an Employee of the City.
  520. September 18, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People & Equity, an Employee of the City.
  521. October 22, 2019, Chris Schafer of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Toronto Urban Fellow Research Associate of People & Equity, an Employee of the City.
  522. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  523. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Ainslie of Ward 24 Scarborough-Guildwood, a Member of Council.
  524. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  525. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ana Bailão of Ward 9 Davenport, a Member of Council.
  526. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  527. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Brad Bradford of Ward 19 Beaches-East York, a Member of Council.
  528. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  529. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Shelley Carroll of Ward 17 Don Valley North, a Member of Council.
  530. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  531. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  532. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  533. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Colle of Ward 8 Eglinton-Lawrence, a Member of Council.
  534. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  535. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gary Crawford of Ward 20 Scarborough Southwest, a Member of Council.
  536. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  537. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Joe Cressy of Ward 10 Spadina-Fort York, a Member of Council.
  538. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  539. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Filion of Ward 18 Willowdale, a Member of Council.
  540. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  541. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Fletcher of Ward 14 Toronto-Danforth, a Member of Council.
  542. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Ford of Ward 1 Etobicoke North, a Member of Council.
  543. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  544. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mark Grimes of Ward 3 Etobicoke-Lakeshore, a Member of Council.
  545. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  546. July 23, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  547. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephen Holyday of Ward 2 Etobicoke Centre, a Member of Council.
  548. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Member of Council.
  549. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  550. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Cynthia Lai of Ward 23 Scarborough North, a Member of Council.
  551. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  552. July 9, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  553. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  554. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  555. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, a Member of Council.
  556. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  557. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Josh Matlow of Ward 12 Toronto-St. Paul’s, a Member of Council.
  558. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  559. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  560. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  561. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jennifer McKelvie of Ward 25 Scarborough-Rouge Park, a Member of Council.
  562. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  563. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Denzil Minnan-Wong of Ward 16 Don Valley East, a Member of Council.
  564. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  565. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Frances Nunziata of Ward 5 York South-Weston, a Member of Council.
  566. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  567. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  568. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to James Pasternak of Ward 6 York Centre, a Member of Council.
  569. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  570. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Gord Perks of Ward 4 Parkdale-High Park, a Member of Council.
  571. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  572. July 3, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  573. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  574. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Perruzza of Ward 7 Humber River-Black Creek, a Member of Council.
  575. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  576. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jaye Robinson of Ward 15 Don Valley West, a Member of Council.
  577. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Michael Thompson of Ward 21 Scarborough Centre, a Member of Council.
  578. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  579. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  580. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Tory of Mayor, a Member of Council.
  581. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  582. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kristyn Wong-Tam of Ward 13 Toronto Centre, a Member of Council.
  583. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Abdullah Sherif of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  584. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Amalia Stefanopoulos of Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong, a Staff of Member of Council.
  585. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Anthony Ferrari of Councillor Frances Nunziata, a Staff of Member of Council.
  586. October 23, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Anthony Tersigni of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  587. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Antonette DiNovo of Councillor Paul Ainslie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  588. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ashley Mcdonald of Councillor Jaye Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  589. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  590. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  591. October 23, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  592. October 26, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  593. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Aytakin Mohammadi of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  594. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Carolina Vecchiarelli of Councillor Josh Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  595. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  596. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  597. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Caroline Duffy of Councillor Mike Colle, a Staff of Member of Council.
  598. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  599. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  600. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Daniela Magisano of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  601. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  602. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Edward Birnbaum of Mayor Tory, a Staff of Member of Council.
  603. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Hector Alonso of Councillor James Pasternak, a Staff of Member of Council.
  604. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  605. July 3, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Jessica Pointon of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  606. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to John Sinclair of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  607. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Karen Duffy of Councillor Gord Perks, a Staff of Member of Council.
  608. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Kim Edgar of Councillor Mark Grimes, a Staff of Member of Council.
  609. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lesley Burlie of Councillor Jaye Robinson, a Staff of Member of Council.
  610. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lia Brewer of Councillor Joe Cressy, a Staff of Member of Council.
  611. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Lorraine Hewitt of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  612. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Maham Aqil of Councillor Gary Crawford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  613. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  614. July 7, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  615. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Matias de Dovitiis of Councillor Anthony Perruzza, a Staff of Member of Council.
  616. October 7, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to, Teleconference Michael Giles of Councillor Ana Bailão, a Staff of Member of Council.
  617. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Nikolaos Mantas of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, a Staff of Member of Council.
  618. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paul Bieksa of Councillor Brad Bradford, a Staff of Member of Council.
  619. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Paula Goncalves of Councillor Cynthia Lai, a Staff of Member of Council.
  620. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Robyn Bidgood of Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam, a Staff of Member of Council.
  621. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Lo of Councillor Shelley Carroll, a Staff of Member of Council.
  622. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sarah Barber of Councillor John Filion, a Staff of Member of Council.
  623. July 8, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  624. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  625. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  626. March 1, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  627. March 4, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  628. March 9, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  629. March 10, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., made a telephone call to Scott Morphet of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  630. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Sheila Henderson of Councillor Stephen Holyday, a Staff of Member of Council.
  631. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Slavisa Mijatovic of Councillor Josh Matlow, a Staff of Member of Council.
  632. July 2, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  633. July 9, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  634. July 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  635. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Stephanie Nakitsas of Councillor Mike Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  636. July 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Susan Serran of Councillor Paula Fletcher, a Staff of Member of Council.
  637. October 8, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Executive Director of Yonge + St. Clair BIA, an Employee of Local Board.
  638. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  639. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  640. October 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  641. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to General Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  642. July 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  643. August 21, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  644. September 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  645. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  646. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  647. September 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  648. January 20, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  649. April 9, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  650. April 11, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Strategic Policy and Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  651. July 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  652. August 21, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  653. September 10, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  654. September 12, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  655. September 14, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  656. September 30, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  657. December 15, 2020, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  658. January 20, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  659. January 29, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  660. January 30, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  661. April 9, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  662. April 11, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Senior Project Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  663. January 20, 2021, Jonathan Hopkins of Neutron Holdings Inc., Teleconference Senior Public Consultation Coordinator of Policy, Planning, Finance & Administration, an Employee of the City.
  664. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Jim Karygiannis of Ward 22 Scarborough-Agincourt, an Member of Council.
  665. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Mike Layton of Ward 11 University-Rosedale, an Member of Council.
  666. February 6, 2020, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., sent an e-mail to Ryan Pyne of Councillor Jennifer McKelvie, a Staff of Member of Council.
  667. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Stephanie Nakitas of Office of Councillor Layton, a Staff of Member of Council.
  668. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Coordinator Bicycle Safety Education of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  669. March 13, 2019, Thomas Alif of Neutron Holdings Inc., met with Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.

 Populus Technologies Inc.

  1. October 1, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  2. October 9, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  3. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  4. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  5. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  6. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  7. June 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  8. January 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  9. June 1, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  10. June 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  11. June 18, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  12. June 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  13. July 2, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  14. July 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  15. June 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  16. June 10, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  17. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  18. September 27, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  19. October 1, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  20. October 9, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  21. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  22. January 23, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  23. February 14, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  24. February 28, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  25. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  26. March 9, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  27. March 24, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  28. April 15, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  29. April 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  30. May 8, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  31. May 19, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  32. May 27, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online met with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  33. June 10, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  34. June 16, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  35. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  36. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  37. October 1, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  38. October 9, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  39. October 18, 2019, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  40. February 14, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  41. February 28, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  42. March 5, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  43. June 17, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  44. June 22, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  45. September 18, 2020, Regina Clewlow, Senior Officer of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  46. October 1, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  47. October 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Made a telephone call to, Web based Call Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  48. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  49. December 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  50. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  51. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  52. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  53. June 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online Met with Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  54. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  55. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  56. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  57. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  58. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  59. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  60. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  61. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  62. February 16, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  63. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  64. June 1, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  65. June 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  66. June 18, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  67. June 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online Met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  68. July 2, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  69. July 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  70. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  71. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  72. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  73. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  74. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  75. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  76. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  77. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  78. February 16, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  79. June 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  80. June 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  81. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  82. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  83. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  84. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  85. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Program Manager of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  86. September 27, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  87. October 1, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  88. October 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  89. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  90. December 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  91. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  92. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  93. February 14, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  94. February 26, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  95. February 28, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  96. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  97. March 9, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  98. March 24, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  99. April 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  100. April 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  101. May 8, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  102. May 19, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  103. May 27, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Met with, Online Met with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  104. June 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  105. June 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  106. September 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  107. September 15, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  108. September 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  109. October 13, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  110. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  111. December 10, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  112. December 16, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  113. December 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  114. January 12, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  115. February 16, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  116. September 5, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  117. September 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  118. September 10, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  119. September 13, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  120. September 25, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  121. October 1, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  122. October 18, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  123. December 9, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  124. December 23, 2019, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  125. January 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  126. January 23, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  127. February 14, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  128. February 28, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  129. March 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  130. July 22, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  131. September 18, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  132. November 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  133. January 12, 2021, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  134. February 5, 2020, Stephanie Seki of Populus Technologies, Inc., Sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  135. September 13, 2019, Malia Schiling of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  136. September 25, 2019, Malia Schiling of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  137. October 9, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  138. October 9, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  139. October 9, 2019, Eliot Mueting of Populus Technologies, Inc., made a telephone call to, Web based Call Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  140. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  141. June 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met withs Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  142. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  143. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  144. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  145. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Data & Analytics of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  146. January 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  147. June 1, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  148. June 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  149. June 18, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  150. June 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  151. July 2, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  152. July 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  153. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  154. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  155. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  156. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  157. June 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online met with Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  158. June 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Operational Policy & Innovation of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  159. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Manager, Street Furniture Management of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  160. January 23, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  161. February 14, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  162. February 26, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  163. February 28, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  164. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  165. March 9, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  166. March 24, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  167. April 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  168. April 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  169. May 8, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  170. May 19, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  171. May 27, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., met with, Online Met with Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  172. June 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  173. June 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  174. September 10, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  175. September 15, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  176. September 16, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  177. October 13, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Lead, Big Data Innovation Team of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  178. February 14, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  179. February 28, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.
  180. March 5, 2020, Rodney Stiles of Populus Technologies, Inc., sent an e-mail to Project Officer, Pedestrian Projects of Transportation Services, an Employee of the City.



Source link

Please Write to the City of Toronto to Support the AODA Alliance‘s New, Comprehensive Brief on Why Toronto Should Not Lift the Ban on Electric Scooters


Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance Update

United for a Barrier-Free Society for All People with Disabilities

Web: www.aodaalliance.org Email: [email protected] Twitter: @aodaalliance Facebook: www.facebook.com/aodaalliance/

Please Write to the City of Toronto to Support the AODA Alliance‘s New, Comprehensive Brief on Why Toronto Should Not Lift the Ban on Electric Scooters

March 30, 2021

            SUMMARY

The AODA Alliance has just submitted a comprehensive brief to the City of Toronto showing why it must not lift the ban on electric scooters (e-scooters). This brief, set out below, brings together and supplements all the work we have done on this e-scooters issue over the past 19 months. We set the brief out below.

The brief begins with a pithy 3-page summary, for those who don’t have time to read it all. We encourage you or any community organization with which you are connected to email Toronto Mayor John Tory, any City Council member you think appropriate, and Toronto City staff. Tell them you support the AODA Alliance’s March 30, 2021 brief opposing e-scooters in Toronto.

Mayor Tory: [email protected] and you can email City staff by writing

City staff: [email protected]

For an easy-to-use online tool to email Mayor Tory and any City Council members you wish, provided courtesy of the March of Dimes of Canada, visit https://www.marchofdimes.ca/en-ca/aboutus/govtrelations/elections/Pages/escooters.aspx

Please quickly write Toronto. It is anticipated that this issue will come up again at the City of Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee on April 28, 2021. We will have more information for you in the coming days.

For more background on this issue, visit the AODA Alliance’s e-scooters web page.

Riding Electric Scooters in Toronto is Dangerous and Must Remain Banned – For Toronto To Allow E-scooters Would be to Knowingly Create New Disability Accessibility Barriers Against People with Disabilities

AODA Alliance brief to the City of Toronto

March 30, 2021

Mayor Tory and Toronto City Council must not unleash dangerous electric scooters in Toronto. Riding e-scooters in public places in Toronto is now banned. It remains banned unless Council legalizes them. The pressure to allow e-scooters is relentlessly being advanced by corporate lobbyists for the wealthy and well-financed e-scooter rental industry. Torontonians, including Torontonians with disabilities, need Mayor Tory and City Council to stand up to the corporate lobbyists, and to stand up for vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others whom e-scooters endanger.

The AODA Alliance submits this brief to the City of Toronto in opposition to the proposal to lift the ban on riding e-scooters in public places in Toronto. It should remain illegal for e-scooters to be ridden in public, whether on a rental e-scooter or a privately-owned e-scooter.

The non-partisan AODA Alliance has played a leading role in raising serious disability safety and accessibility concerns with e-scooters. To learn more about the AODA Alliance’s advocacy efforts to protect people with disabilities and others from the dangers that e-scooters pose, visit its e-scooters web page.

This issue will likely be on the agenda at the April 28, 2021 meeting of the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment committee. We ask City staff to incorporate this brief’s findings and recommendations in its forthcoming report to The Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee and the Toronto City Council as a whole.

 1. Summary of this Brief – Don’t Allow E-scooters in Toronto

Toronto should not lift the current ban on riding e-scooters in public places, whether permanently or for a pilot project. For Toronto to allow people to ride e-scooters, whether ones they own or rent, would knowingly and seriously endanger the safety of people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. It would knowingly create new accessibility barriers against people with disabilities. This would fly in the face of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the guarantees to people with disabilities in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Ontario Human Rights Code. Here are key incontrovertible facts overwhelmingly established by objective City staff reports and by public feedback:

  1. Having been forewarned, for the City of Toronto to lift the ban on e-scooters in light of the dangers they pose, as documented in this brief, would expose the City to major claims for knowingly endangering Toronto’s residents and knowingly creating new accessibility barriers against persons with disabilities. For the City of Toronto to do so knowingly is the same as doing so intentionally.
  1. E-scooters will cause an increase in personal injuries, including serious personal injuries to innocent pedestrians and e-scooter riders, burdening Toronto’s overburdened hospital emergency rooms. E-scooters are a silent menace, ridden by unhelmetted, untrained, unlicensed and uninsured riders.
  1. If Toronto allows e-scooters, but bans them from sidewalks, experience in other cities shows for certain that e-scooters will nevertheless regularly be ridden on Toronto sidewalks. This endangers innocent pedestrians. Toronto lacks the law enforcement capacity to effectively police new rules regarding e-scooters, such as a ban on riding or parking them on sidewalks.
  1. If Toronto permits e-scooters, this will create new serious accessibility barriers impeding people with disabilities. This will happen especially in public places like sidewalks where they will be left strewn about, as in other cities that permit e-scooters. They will be a tripping hazard for blind people. They will block accessible paths of travel for people using wheelchairs. Toronto already has far too many accessibility barriers in public places such as sidewalks. E-scooters would make this even worse.
  1. Toronto City staff found no other city that has found an effective way to permit and regulate e-scooters and to effectively enforce those regulations.
  1. To lift the ban on e-scooters will invariably place new financial burdens on the taxpayer. The maximum amount cannot be quantified in advance. This will include added health care costs due to e-scooter injuries, cost of added infrastructure to accommodate e-scooters, added law enforcement costs, added regulatory and monitoring costs, and other liabilities triggered by e-scooters.
  1. Toronto’s mayor and City Council have received strong united opposition to e-scooters from the disability community, reflecting the needs of vulnerable people with disabilities ,seniors and children. This includes two successive compelling unanimous resolutions against e-scooters by the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, strong opposition by many respected disability community organizations, passionate deputations against e-scooters by every person with a disability presenting to City Council committees that have invited deputations on this topic, and emails and phone calls to the mayor and City Council members from many people with disabilities and their supporters.
  1. On July 28, 2020, City Council directed City staff to research disability community concerns with e-scooters. City staff’s research further validated and documented disability community concerns with e-scooters. City staff explored options for addressing these concerns and found that there are no workable solutions that are safe and that avoid the creation of new accessibility barriers. The e-scooter rental industry’s proposed solutions would impose significant cost burdens on the public. They would not effectively solve these public safety and disability accessibility concerns.
  1. It is disturbing that on July 28, 2020, almost half of City Council voted to oppose City Staff conducting research on disability concerns with e-scooters. Had those dissenting Council members succeeded, the important new information that City staff has revealed would never have come to light, to the serious detriment of people with disabilities.
  1. In disregard of these serious dangers, a relentless push for e-scooters in Toronto is mounted by corporate lobbyists for the Canadian arm of international e-scooter rental companies such as Lime and Bird. They unleashed an extensive, well-financed and well-connected lobbying feeding frenzy at City Hall. Some City Council members told the AODA Alliance that this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest corporate lobbying blitz now underway at City Hall. An AODA Alliance report documented that between June 2018 and October 2020, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists had fully 1,384 contacts at City Hall, including 94 with the mayor’s office.
  1. Substantially eviscerating their credibility on this issue, this brief documents that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists have made a number of false, exaggerated, misleading and/or transparently meritless claims to support their pressure for Toronto to lift the ban on e-scooters and let them expand their market. If Toronto allows e-scooters, the e-scooter rental companies will be laughing all the way to the bank, while members of the public, including vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors and children, will be sobbing all the way to the hospital.
  1. The e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ entire campaign is based on the erroneous assertion that rental e-scooters will significantly reduce traffic and pollution, because instead of driving, people will take public transit, and then rent an e-scooter to ride the last mile to their destinations. Yet data from City staff and from the corporate lobbyists themselves shows that the vast majority of e-scooter rides are NOT taken to connect to public transit. They thus won’t reduce traffic or pollution. Indeed a proportion of e-scooter renters use an e-scooter instead of walking or taking public transit. Moreover, for e-scooters to be effective for this “last mile”, Toronto must be inundated with thousands of e-scooters, so one is available whenever a rider wants one. This exacerbates city clutter and disability barriers.
  1. The public use of e-scooters in Toronto should remain banned in any form, whether privately owned the by the rider, or rented e.g. through a shared e-scooter program. The AODA Alliance opposes any e-scooter rental program, whether run by the e-scooter rental companies directly or by the City of Toronto e.g. through its Bike Share program.
  1. The AODA Alliance agrees with the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, which called on City law enforcement to enforce the current ban on e-scooters. If someone now illegally rides an e-scooter, City Council should mandate law enforcement to confiscate that e-scooter.
  1. The fact that Toronto earlier approved some other shared economy activities, like Uber ride sharing, should not mean the e-scooter corporate lobbyists get a free pass here. Any prior approval of ride-sharing, for example, did not take into account the dangers that e-scooters pose. Each shared economy proposal should be assessed on its own strengths and dangers. Rejecting e-scooters does not preclude City Council from approving other shared economic activities, where it adjudges them safe and appropriate.
  1. We seek the leadership of Toronto Mayor John Tory. We need him and all City Council to stand up for people with disabilities, seniors, children and others endangered by e-scooters. We need Mayor Tory and City Council to stand up to the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

 2. The Proof is Overwhelming – E-Scooters Endanger Personal Safety and Accessibility for People with Disabilities, Seniors, Children and Others.

Overwhelming evidence shows that allowing e-scooters in Toronto will endanger the safety of the public, including vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. They will also create new accessibility barriers in a city that is already full of too many disability barriers.

 a)Two Strong Resolutions of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee

These concerns are strongly supported by two unanimous motions of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee. Those resolutions were passed on February 3, 2020 and February 25, 2021. The latter reads:

“The Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee communicate to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee and City Council, for consideration with the next staff report on electric kick scooters, that:

  1. The Committee does not support the use of any electric kick-scooters (e-scooters) in the City of Toronto; and request that a ban prohibiting their use in all public space remain in place without any exceptions, as they:
  2. create a general safety hazard in the public realm for all Toronto residents;
  3. add further barriers for the elderly and persons living with disabilities;
  4. are poorly enforced when illegally used due to insufficient enforcement resources;
  5. further encumber pre-existing inadequate infrastructure.
  6. The Committee recommends that City Council request the Toronto Police Services Board, the General Manager, Transportation Services, and the Executive Director, Municipal Licensing and Standards to consult with accessibility stakeholders to:
  7. develop a public education campaign to effectively convey the existing by-laws on the prohibition of e-scooters use in all public spaces;
  8. actively scale up city-wide enforcement of the by-law prohibiting use of e-scooters in all public spaces.”

It is especially important for Toronto Mayor John Tory and City Council to pay heed to these unanimous strong resolutions. This is because the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) requires cities like Toronto to create such municipal accessibility advisory committees. They exist in order to alert municipal governments to important areas where priority action is needed on accessibility for people with disabilities. This includes, among other things, action needed to prevent the creation of new accessibility barriers. If a municipal government creates a new accessibility barrier after it was warned not to do so by its accessibility advisory committee, that government will be acting in a deliberate, intentional and harmful way, contrary to the AODA’s goal.

 b) Media Coverage Objectively Documents Serious Harms Caused by E-scooters

Here is a sampling of media coverage objectively documenting the harms and injuries that e-scooters can cause.

*E-scooter hit-and-run crash leaves pedestrian, 65, seriously injured in hospital in Greater Manchester, UK

*Woman left with brain injury after being hit by e-scooter when getting off bus in Auckland court hears

*Six e-scooter riders before courts for intoxicated riding – UK pilots

*According to the Edmonton Journal, in Edmonton 94 percent said they saw e-scooters used on sidewalks, 68% said more enforcement needed.

*The Washington Post reported on January 11, 2019 that a 75-year-old man in San Diego tripped over an e-scooter. He was taken to hospital, “where X-rays revealed his knee was shattered in four places”. The article quotes Wally Ghurabi, medical director of the Nethercutt Emergency Center at the UCLA Medical Center in Santa Monica. Ghurabi said, “I’ve seen pedestrians injured by scooters with broken hips, multiple bone fractures, broken ribs and joint injuries and soft tissue injuries like lacerations and deep abrasions.” The article also reports incidents involving pedestrians in Dallas, where a 32-year-old man was “left with scrapes on his knee and face, as well as a deep gash above his right eye that required seven stitches”, and Cincinnati, where a 44-year-old woman incurred approximately $1000 in medical expenses after being “throw [n]…to the ground” — both following collisions with e-scooters.

*Euronews reported on June 18, 2019, that Paris intended to implement speed limits and parking restrictions for e-scooters following its “first death on an electric scooter”. The French transport minister also announced a nationwide ban on e-scooters on sidewalks, effective September. A week prior to the announcements, a 25-year-old man riding an e-scooter had died after being hit by a truck. The report details other incidents, involving both riders and bystanders. In Sweden, “a 27-year-old man died in a crash while riding one of the electric vehicles in May”. In Barcelona, “a 92-year-old woman died in August 2018 after she was run over by an e-scooter — making it the first case of a pedestrian being killed by the electric vehicle”.

*On July 26, 2019, CBC News reported that since e-scooters became available in Calgary, “Calgary emergency rooms have seen 60 patients with e-scooter-related injuries”. The report added that “[a] bout a third of them were fractures and roughly 10 per cent were injuries to the face and head”. These figures have triggered a study by the University of Calgary.

*The Guardian reported on August 11, 2019 that Paris had experienced its third e-scooter-related death in four months: “A 30-year-old man has been killed after being hit by a motorbike while riding his e-scooter on a French motorway.” The report went on to state that “ [t] he scooter rider was not wearing a helmet and was reportedly travelling in the fast lane when the motorbike hit him from behind”, despite the fact that “[u] sing scooters on motorways is banned in France”. Moreover, “The day before the accident, a 27-year-old woman suffered serious head injuries after falling from an e-scooter she was using in a cycle lane in Lyon. A few days earlier a 41-year-old man had been seriously injured after falling from his e-scooter in Lille.” Finally, the report provided details on another, earlier e-scooter-related death in France: “An 81-year-old man died after he was reportedly knocked over by an e-scooter in Levallois-Perret, a Parisian suburb, in April.”

*CityNews reported on August 13, 2019, as part of a short survey of European regulations, that “German police say seven people have been seriously injured and 27 suffered minor injuries in scooter accidents since mid-June, saying most were due to riders behaving carelessly.”

*In Austin, an article from 2019 states that almost half of the 190 e-scooter injuries in a three-month period were injuries to the head and 15 percent were traumatic brain injuries. Less than 1 percent of injured riders were wearing helmets.

*In San Antonio, wheelchair users complain of e-scooters being left on sidewalks and ramps; these present a danger to individuals who rely on wheelchairs for mobility. The article notes that the e-scooters create profound obstacles for disabled people who are simply trying to get to work or run daily errands.

 

*An article entitled “Sharing the sidewalk: A case of E-scooter related pedestrian injury” published in the American Journal of Emergency Medicine in June 2019 cites multiple studies corroborating the occurrence of pedestrian injuries: one from Israel found that, while pedestrians were 8.4% of the patients admitted for e-bike- and e-scooter-related injuries, they “were more severely injured; compared to electric scooter riders and electric bike riders, pedestrians have higher rates of head, face, and neck injuries; traumatic brain injuries; and hospital stays lasting more than a week”.

 c) Major Disability Organizations Unite in Opposition to Allowing E-Scooters

An impressive number of respected community organizations have voiced the same safety and accessibility concerns especially for people with disabilities and seniors. They have called for e-scooters not to be allowed. A January 22, 2020 Open letter in opposition to e-scooters in Ontario cities like Toronto has been co-signed or endorsed by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, March of Dimes of Canada, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, the ARCH Disability Law Centre, Spinal Cord Injury Ontario, the Ontario Autism Coalition, the Older Women’s Network, the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians, Guide Dog Users of Canada, Views for the Visually Impaired, Citizens With Disabilities – Ontario and Canadians with Disabilities of B’nai Brith Canada.

 d) All deputants with Disabilities Addressing City of Toronto Committees on E-scooters Raise Serious Safety and Accessibility Objections

Safety and accessibility concerns led every deputant with disabilities and their supporters, speaking at City of Toronto Committee meetings on this issue, to insist that e-scooters must not be allowed in Toronto. This was the unanimous message from all people with disabilities and their supporters who have addressed the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 3, 2020 or February 25, 2021, and who addressed the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee on July 9, 2020.

For example, at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, a very long meeting for that Committee, Disability presenters at the meeting were unanimous in voicing total opposition to e-scooters in any form or on any basis in Toronto. John Rae, a blind person over the age of 70, spoke for the Alliance for Equality of Blind Canadians. He described e-scooters as an e-menace to people with disabilities and seniors. He said that any deployment or testing of e-scooters would be a new disability barrier, flying in the face of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. He said Toronto, including its sidewalks, have been becoming less accessible to persons with vision loss. E-scooters will make this worse. This is an issue of pedestrian safety.

Edward Rice, speaking for B’nai Brith Canada, showed disturbing pictures from Fort Lauderdale Florida, where from a year before, when in a two block area, there were fully 25 e-scooters strewn about the sidewalk. He uses a mobility device. He had to ask strangers to move these out of the way so he could travel on the sidewalk. He called this “embarrassing and humiliating”.

John Mosa, Melanie Marsden and Andrea Hatala together spoke for the GTA Disability Coalition, a network of different disability organizations. They, like Mr. Rice, cited a study of increased emergency room visits in Calgary due to e-scooter use. In Toronto this would compound the discrimination which people with disabilities risk in hospital during COVID-19 due to the Ontario Government’s critical care triage protocol. They identified the barriers to people with disabilities that e-scooters pose, because they are silent and can be difficult to avoid, and because they can be a tripping hazard and mobility barrier on sidewalks. They endorsed the AODA Alliance’s call for e-scooters to be banned, for there to be no e-scooter pilot, and for police to enforce the ban on e-scooters against those now riding them.

Jennifer Griffith, a blind woman who uses a guide dog, described Toronto as an increasingly dangerous and inaccessible city. Her example of dangers are construction sites in the city that she has to try to safely navigate through or around. She described the fear she would face each time she goes out in public if she faces the danger of silent e-scooters injuring her. She would not have heard of a proposal for an e-scooter pilot, had it not been for the AODA Alliance.

Ron Redham is a 60 year old person with a disability who lives in Etobicoke and walks with canes. Having gradually learned how to use canes after having to use a wheelchair, He asked Toronto not to send him and others back on the rehabilitation burdens that he had to go through. He doesn’t want to end up in a wheelchair again. He said in Montreal, 80% of scooters were parked illegally, resulting in them littering the downtown. This led to an early cancellation of their pilot project.

Paul Michaels is from B’nai Brith Canada, a national human rights organization. He has two family members with cerebral palsy. They asked him to share with the Committee their fear that they could not readily maneuver out of the path of an oncoming e-scooter or around a group of e-scooters.

Adam Cahoon said he gets hateful looks when he uses his power wheelchair at full speed, around 8 KPH or so. He said e-scooter scan go over double his speed, making him feel especially vulnerable.

On February 25, 2021, several members of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee also described serious safety and accessibility dangers that e-scooters pose for people with disabilities. For example, a member of Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee said that deafblind persons would be especially vulnerable.

 e) Toronto City Staff Confirm the Safety Dangers and New Accessibility Barriers that E-Scooters Would Create in Toronto

Two written City staff reports confirm that e-scooters endanger public safety, including safety for vulnerable people with disabilities, seniors, children and others. They will also create new disability accessibility barriers, even if banned on sidewalks. This is confirmed in the City staff’s June 24, 2020 report to the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee, and the City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee.

The City staff’s June 24, 2020 report to the City’s Infrastructure and Environment Committee included these findings:

* “E-scooters pose a risk to people with disabilities due to their faster speeds and lack of noise. Cities that have allowed e-scooters have observed a high incidence of sidewalk riding by riders, whether permitted or not on sidewalks. Parked e-scooters, especially when part of a dockless sharing system, can pose trip hazards and obstacles. Seniors, people with disabilities, and those with socio-economic challenges could face negative outcomes if injured in a collision or fall. Solutions to enforcement and compliance are still in their infancy.”

* “Vision Zero Road Safety – Risks with E-scooters

The City has a Vision Zero commitment to eliminate serious injuries and fatalities resulting from roadway crashes, particularly around six emphasis areas including pedestrians, school children, and older adults. Replacing car trips with e-scooter trips presents an opportunity to address some road safety issues if e-scooters produce a net safety benefit, especially for these groups. A 2020 International Transport Forum study notes that the risk of hospital admission may be higher for e-scooter riders than for cyclists, but that there are too few studies to draw firm conclusions. While not comprehensive, the emerging evidence of the health impacts associated with e-scooter use warrants a cautious approach to mitigate risks to e-scooter riders, pedestrians, and the City. Some of the findings are below.

New e-scooters users are most likely to be injured with 63 per cent of injuries occurring within the first nine times using an e-scooter. (CDC and City of Austin).

A comparison of serious injury rates between Calgary’s 2019 shared e-scooter pilot and Bike Share Toronto suggests riding a shared e-scooter is potentially about 350 times more likely to result in a serious injury than riding a shared bike on a per km basis, and about 100 times more likely on a per trip basis. This includes a limited sample size, differing definitions for serious injuries, different city contexts (e.g., Calgary allowed e-scooter riding on sidewalks, whereas bicycle riding is not allowed on sidewalks in Toronto) and serious injuries may decline over time as people gain experience riding e-scooters. (Montréal reported few e-scooter injuries for its 2019 pilot, however, it is unclear whether and how data for serious injuries was gathered.) Calculations are based on: 33 ER visits requiring ambulance transport over three months (Jul to Sep 2019) in Calgary for e-scooter-related injuries with a reported 750,000 trips, and average trip length of 0.9km; and 2,439,000 trips for Bike Share Toronto, with 3km average trip length, over 12 months in 2019, and no serious injuries (e.g., broken bones, head trauma, hospitalization) but attributing one for comparison purposes. Further data collection and studies of injuries are needed on a per km basis, by type of trip (i.e., recreational versus commuting, facility type), and by injury type.

The fatality rate for shared e-scooter users is potentially nine to 18 times the rate of bike share-related deaths in the U.S., based on a news report in the Chicagoreader.

Head trauma was reported in nearly one third of all e-scooter-related injuries in the U.S. from 2014 to 2018 – more than twice the rate of head injuries to bicyclists. In a City of Austin study in 2018 over three months, 48 per cent of e-scooter riders who were hurt had head injuries (91 out of 190), with 15 per cent (28 riders) experiencing more serious traumatic brain injuries.

Falling off e-scooters was the cause of 80 per cent of injuries (183 riders); 20 per cent (45 riders) had collided with a vehicle or an object, according to a 2019 UCLA study of two hospital ERs in one year. Just over eight per cent of the injuries were to pedestrians injured as a result of e-scooters (11 hit by an e-scooter, 5 tripped over a parked e-scooter, and 5 were attempting to move an e-scooter not in use).

Hospital data will be key to track injuries and fatalities by type and severity, especially for incidents where no motor vehicle has been involved (e.g., losing control) or for a trip and fall involving improperly parked e-scooters. As an ICD-10 code (international standard injury reporting code) specific to e-scooters will not be implemented in Canada until at least spring 2021, a reliable method to track serious e-scooter related injuries and fatalities presenting at hospitals is currently not available.”

* “Other cities have suspended e-scooter sharing services until after COVID-19 (e.g., Windsor approved a shared e-scooter pilot in April 2020, but has now deferred its pilot until after COVID-19). Prior to the pandemic, a number of jurisdictions (e.g., Boulder, Honolulu, and Houston) had refused to allow or banned the use of e-scooters due to public safety concerns. Key cities with similar population, urban form, and/or climate have not yet piloted e-scooters such as New York City (Manhattan/New York County ban), Philadelphia, and Sydney, Australia.”

* “While staff have considered a potential e-scooter pilot on ActiveTO major road closures, it would pose risks to vulnerable road users and leave the City open to considerable liability and risk due to lack of resources for oversight, education and enforcement at this time. A key purpose of ActiveTO is to provide a mixed use space for physical activity for people of all ages for walking, jogging and human-powered cycling. Piloting a new vehicle type that is throttle-powered and can potentially exceed speeds of 24km/hr poses risks to vulnerable road users in such conditions. It could also lead to confusion about which infrastructure or facilities under ActiveTO are permissible, and this would pose public safety risks that the City does not have resources to manage at this time.”

* “Finally, the risk of injury for new users is high, and could put additional burden on local hospitals and paramedics at this time. For the reasons above, City staff do not recommend permitting e-scooters in ActiveTO facilities in 2020.”

* “If Council were to permit e-scooters to be operated on City streets – without the commensurate resources to provide oversight, education, outreach and enforcement, there would be considerable risks to public safety for e-scooter riders and other vulnerable road users; additional burden on hospitals and paramedics; impacts on accessibility, community nuisance and complaints; impacts on current initiatives to enhance the public realm for COVID-19 recovery efforts, such as CurbTO and CaféTO; and liability and costs to the City. For the reasons above, staff recommend that personal use of e-scooters not be considered until 2021.”

* “Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

Persons with disabilities and seniors have considerable concerns about sidewalk and crosswalk interactions with e-scooter users, as well as concerns regarding trip hazards and obstructions from poorly parked or excessive amounts of e-scooters. The Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee, a body required under the AODA, recommends that City Council prohibit the use of e-scooters in public spaces, including sidewalks and roads. In other jurisdictions outside of Ontario, some legal action has been undertaken against municipalities by persons injured as a result of e-scooter sidewalk obstructions, as well as by persons with disabilities.“

After City Council directed City staff on July 28, 2020 to do further research on the disability concerns regarding e-scooters, City staff did further research. This further research reinforced the public safety and accessibility concerns addressed above. None of the City staff’s new information refuted or reduced the concerns about the dangers that e-scooters present as raised by disability advocates and others. The City staff’s further research did not support a conclusion that these concerns have been or could be effectively eliminated.

The City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee included

* “According to the UDV (German Insurers Accident Research) in January 2021, e-scooter riders are 4 times more (or 400% more) likely than bicyclists to injure others, due to e-scooters being illegally ridden on sidewalks.

–     In 21% of e-scooter incidents with personal injury, the victim is not the rider, but another road user. This is due in part to e-scooters being ridden on sidewalks 60% of the time when they should be on the road or bike lane.

According to Austria’s Kuratorium für Verkehrssicherheit (KFV) in October 2020, 34% of 573 e-scooter riders observed at several Vienna locations illegally rode on the sidewalk.

–     Even if there was a bike path, 23 percent preferred the sidewalk. If there was only one cycle or multi-purpose lane, 46 percent rode on the sidewalk. If there was no cycling infrastructure, 49 percent rolled illegally on the sidewalk.”

* “Canadian context – City of Calgary

  • No bike share. Only rental e-scooters allowed in Alberta.
  • Allows e-scooter riding on sidewalks.
  • 43% of 311 requests about bad behaviour or conflicts with pedestrians; 42% parking concerns. (total of 769 requests over the pilot period)
  • Now allowing e-scooter use on some roads to reduce sidewalk riding issues. Added slow speed zones and 30 parking zones (2.5% of riders ended trips in parking zones; 10% of the e-scooter fleet was deployed to the parking zones).
  • E-scooters to return via the procurement process. Lowered fleet cap from 2,800 (2020) to 1,500 (2021). Will require licence plates for enforcement.
  • “Likely that e-scooters have the highest rate of injury per transportation mode” but less severe. 43% of EMS e-scooter injuries required surgery (double that of EMS bicycles at 21%). 37% of severe e-scooter injuries had suspected intoxication.
  • 1,300 e-Scooter-related ER visits during the pilot period but may be over-inclusive of other devices referred to as scooters. 75 required ambulance transport, 5% were pedestrians injured.

Canadian context – City of Ottawa

  • No bike share. Personal use and rental e-scooters allowed on roads with max 50km/h limit, bike lanes, and trails/paths that are not National Capital Commission multi-use paths.
  • Lowered max. speed to 20km/hr for e-scooters from the permitted 24km/hr under the provincial pilot. 8km/hr for slow zones, e.g., transit malls/stations.
  • Piloted a fleet of 600 e-scooters with 3 vendors in 2020. Will increase the fleet cap to between 1,200 and 1,500 for 2021 and expand outside the Greenbelt (suburban area).
  • 76% of e-scooter riders surveyed used e-scooters for recreation; 2% to connect to transit (COVID-19 context)
  • Will pilot in 2021 via procurement process. Staff labour costs not included in cost-recovery. Considering designated parking areas. 69% of all survey respondents reported encountering improperly parked e-scooters.
  • No injury data collection with hospitals and not likely for 2021 given the pandemic.
  • Accessibility stakeholders were consulted and raised concerns about sidewalk riding and improper parking, especially barriers for persons with low vision or no vision.”

Despite all the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates e-scooters ‘dangers, the two lead e-scooter rental companies, Bird and Lime, together have campaigned for e-scooters in Toronto in effect as if none of that evidence is true. For example, Bird tried to convey an impression that e-scooters pose no additional danger to public safety, if allowed, and are simply the same as bikes. This defies logic. Unlike bikes, an e-scooter, ridden for the very first time by an utterly inexperienced rider, can silently race faster than 20 kph in seconds, powered by an onboard motor. The faster a vehicle’s speed on impact with an innocent pedestrian, the greater the force applied, and the risk of consequential injury.

Lime has made even more exaggerated claims. It repeatedly told the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that rental e-scooters, if allowed, will improve public safety, stating:

“The OECD says in their widely, the most extensive report in the world on micro-mobility that road users will be safer, all road users, if e-scooter and bicycle trips replace travel by car or motorcycle.”

Lime would thus have Toronto believe that the public is at greater danger now, because e-scooters are not allowed. To support this extreme claim, Lime in substance argued that cars are more dangerous to pedestrians than are e-scooters. Is it just a coincidence that this claim serves the economic interests of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists in getting as many e-scooters on the road as possible, claiming in effect that the more e-scooters that are deployed, the safer we all will be?

Of course, cars are much bigger and heavier than e-scooters. They can go much faster than e-scooters. As such, a car can cause greater injuries when it hits a pedestrian.

Lime’s claim rests on fatally flawed premises. First, no one is contemplating banning cars from the road, and replacing them with e-scooters. Second, cars, unlike e-scooters, are not routinely driven on sidewalks, where pedestrians expect and deserve to be able to walk in safety, unthreatened by any motor vehicles. Third, as addressed further below, in cities where e-scooters are allowed, they have not been proven to materially reduce the amount of car traffic on the road.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, the City got a unique opportunity to assess the clash between City staff who say that e-scooters create new safety dangers on the one hand, and e-scooter corporate lobbyists who claim that e-scooters will improve public safety, on the other. Committee members asked both e-scooter corporate lobbyists and City staff to address the clash in the data that each relied upon.

When the answers of City staff and the e-scooter corporate lobbyists are assessed together, the only plausible conclusion is to reject the corporate lobbyists’ claims that e-scooters improve public safety, rather than endangering public safety. City Council is strongly encouraged to prefer the City staff findings. This is so in light of the fact that City staff, acting in the tradition of professional public servants, have provided unimpeachable objective data. In sharp contrast, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’s have a strong economic motive to exaggerate their claims. As is further documented later in this brief, they also have a disturbing track record of false, exaggerated and misleading claims that brings their credibility into question.

Lime Canada conceded that if a city council saw the information about the impact of e-scooters that City staff presented at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, they would vote against e-scooters. Lime also conceded at that meeting that the highest priority risk areas are parking compliance, compliance with not riding on sidewalks, and riding while intoxicated. We emphasize that all those three areas bear directly on creation of new safety dangers and disability accessibility barriers.

Despite those major admissions, to support its claims that e-scooters will improve public safety rather than endangering it, Lime and Bird referred a report from the International Transport Forum ITF of the OECD at the same Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting. However, City staff correctly pointed out several critical features of that report that controvert the corporate lobbyists’ reliance on and claims about it.

First, that report, which the corporate lobbyists called an “OECD report”, was not in fact endorsed or approved by the OECD. To the contrary, it is labelled as a Corporate Partnership Board Report. City staff explained that the corporate partnership board includes e-scooter manufacturers and e-scooter rental companies. The report includes a pivotal disclaimer that:

“Funding for this work has been provided by the ITF Corporate Partnership Board” and “It has not been subject to the scrutiny of ITF or OECD member countries and does not necessarily reflect their official views or those of the members of the Corporate Partnership Board.”

Second, Bird claimed that the International Transport Forum of the OECD had concluded that a road fatality is not significantly more likely when using a shared standing e-scooter rather than a bicycle, and that the risk of an emergency department visit for an e-scooter rider is similar to that for cyclists. In response, City staff explained that on page 10 and 20 of the report, it says that the hospital rate may be higher for e-scooters, that hospital admissions related to e-scooter incidents may be higher. It is clear that the report does not prove or support the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ claims about it. When City staff met with the e-scooter rental industry on January 20, 2021, City staff were very clear in stating that they do not consider, given the research seen, that that the risk profile of e-scooters is merely the same as bikes.

 3. E-scooters Won’t Materially Reduce Road Traffic, Pollution or Climate Change

E-scooter corporate lobbyists make unsubstantiated claims that to allow e-scooters would materially reduce road traffic and combat pollution and climate change. This lies at the heart of their argument in favour of Toronto permitting e-scooters. For example, Lime told the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021 that e-scooters can save “a ton of car trips”. It turns out that these claims are untrue.

The corporate lobbyists argue that e-scooters would reduce traffic on the roads and reduce pollution because instead of taking a car to their destination, they would ride public transit to get near their destination, and then rent an e-scooter to ride the last mile from transit to their destination, or to ride the first mile from their destination back to public transit. Eviscerating this claim is the fact that most e-scooter renters do not use e-scooters to connect to transit. The February 25, 2021 City staff presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee indicated that in the Ottawa fall 2020 e-scooter pilot, a survey revealed that only 2% of e-scooter riders did so to connect to public transit. As well, the City staff’s June 24, 2020 report to the Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee showed that e-scooters are not mainly used to replace car trips:

“While some mode shift from driving to using an e-scooter has occurred in other cities, the majority of e-scooter trips would have been by walking or public transit (around 60% for Calgary and Portland; and 86% in Greater Paris). For example, 55 per cent would have walked instead of using an e-scooter (Calgary). From a Paris area survey, 44 per cent would have walked, 30 per cent would have used public transit, and 12 per cent would have used a bicycle/shared bike; while this study noted that e-scooters had no impact on car equipment reduction, an extrapolation would assume that 14 per cent would have used a car/ridehail/taxi, which still represents a minor shift away from motorized vehicular use.”

Even Lime’s presentation that day only claimed that 20% of their trips are connections to transit. Therefore, fully 80% of e-scooter rides are not for that purpose, even on the most generous statistical claims from the e-scooter industry.

Making this worse, the corporate lobbyists’ claims supporting e-scooters would require Toronto to be flooded with e-scooters. For e-scooters to serve their supposed benefit as a means to connect to public transit in lieu of car rides, people would have to be assured before they leave home that there will always be an e-scooter waiting for them to rent, conveniently available as soon as they get off public transit, to ride that last mile to their destination. Similarly, When they leave their destination to go back home, they’d need an assurance that there would be a rental -scooter waiting for them right there, available ride the first mile back to transit on their way home.

There would therefore have to be a huge number of e-scooters scattered all over Toronto, just in case someone wants to rent them. Short of that, a person has no assurance that they can rely on this mode of travel. Without that assurance, they won’t know if they can get to their destination on time.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, City staff and the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ presentations, together, show without contradiction that the e-scooter companies do not prefer having e-scooters parked at fixed docking stations, such as those now allocated for Bike Share bikes. Rather, they prefer for a rider to be able to leave an e-scooter on Toronto’s sidewalks, tied to a fixed object. City staff told the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that docking stations have the advantage of reducing the tripping hazards, sidewalk clutter and accessibility barriers that are created when e-scooters are parked on the sidewalk.

City staff explained that Bike Share corrals are typically 500 meters apart. The e-scooter corporate lobbyists want e-scooters to be within as little as 300 meters to each other. No doubt, this is because the closer be the e-scooter is to a potential renter or market, the more likely the customer is to opt for their product. Of course, the bigger the flood of e-scooters scattered around Toronto, the better it is for the e-scooter industry’s profits. However, this also makes the new barriers against people with disabilities and the safety dangers to them even more prolific.

This all means that there must be a massive urban blight of e-scooters, akin to that seen in some other cities, for this supposed benefit of reduced traffic and pollution to work. So speculative a benefit is hardly worth the proven harms e-scooters cause.

 4. Allowing E-scooters Would Impose Significant New Financial Burdens on the Taxpayer

City staff reports amply support the inevitable conclusion that to lift the ban on e-scooters in Toronto would impose significant but as-yet unquantifiable financial burdens on the taxpayer. This includes among other things, health care and litigation costs arising from personal injuries caused by e-scooters, the cost of creating and maintaining infrastructure to accommodate e-scooters, the cost of enforcing the laws regulating e-scooters if enacted, the cost of City regulating e-scooters, collecting data and monitoring e-scooter use and e-scooter companies. At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, City staff reported that The City’s insurance and risk management people believe that there would be significant costs to the City if a pilot were to be held. The costs to the City of allowing e-scooters would include costs of claims, cost of police enforcement, cost of City Transportation staff dealing with litter issues enforcement, the cost of City data collection and the cost of staff monitoring and providing oversight. Insurance and risk management is finding it difficult to come up with a specific dollar amount for these costs. This resoundingly disproves the e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ false claims at the July 9, 2020 Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee that there would be no additional costs to the City.

COVID-19 has already imposed massive new costs on Toronto, and on Ontario. Toronto is in no position to suffer these added new additional e-scooter costs. If Toronto can afford to spend more now on Toronto’s infrastructure and environment, it should be spent to reduce the many accessibility barriers facing people with disabilities. It should not be spent to create new disability barriers, as e-scooters would cause.

The June 24, 2020 City staff report to the Infrastructure and Environment Committee found:

“There is a significant risk that the City may be held partially or fully liable for damages if e-scooter riders or other parties are injured. Transportation Services staff consulted with the City’s Insurance and Risk Management office (I&RM) to understand the magnitude of the City’s liability if allowing e-scooters. At this time, loss data is lacking on e-scooters due to generally lengthy settlement times for bodily injury claims. The City has significant liability exposure, however, due to joint and several liability, as the City may have to pay an entire judgement or claim even if only found to be 1 per cent at fault for an incident. The City has a $5M deductible per occurrence, which means the City will be responsible for all costs below that amount. In terms of costs, Transportation Services staff will also be required to investigate and serve in the discovery process for claims.

E-scooter sharing/rental companies typically require a rider to sign a waiver, placing the onus of compensating injured parties on the rider. Riders are left financially exposed due to a lack of insurance coverage and if unable to pay, municipalities will be looked to for compensation (e.g., in settlements and courts). Claims related to e-scooter malfunction have been reported by the media (such as in Atlanta, Auckland, New Zealand and Brisbane, Australia). In 2019, a Grand Jury faulted the City of San Diego for inadequate regulation and enforcement of e-scooter sharing companies. By opting in to the Pilot, the City will be exposed to claims associated with improperly parked e-scooters as evidenced by lawsuits filed by persons with disabilities and those injured by e-scooter obstructions (such as in Minneapolis and Santa Monica, California).”

Beyond the foregoing, the City of Toronto could expose itself to major damages claims if people get injured by e-scooters. As amply documented throughout this brief and on the AODA Alliance’s e-scooters web page, Toronto has ample basis to know that e-scooters present proven safety and disability accessibility dangers. For Toronto to expose Torontonians to e-scooters once it has been alerted to these dangers, injured parties can be expected to claim greater damages. This is because Toronto thereby knowingly endangered its residents and knowingly created new disability accessibility barriers. The City could not credibly defend itself by claiming that it had no idea that it was creating these dangers by allowing e-scooters at the behest of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

 5. No Effective Insurance Solutions Are Now Available

It has been a fundamental requirement of public policy for decades that the public should be assured that there is sufficient insurance in place to cover those who are injured by motor vehicles. That is why driving a car without proper insurance is an offence.

This is an issue which has not been solved for e-scooters, a form of motor vehicle. The City staff’s June 24,2020 report included:

“This report also recommends the need for improved industry standards at the provincial and federal levels for greater consumer protection in the purchase and/or use of e-scooters. While staff are aware that e-scooters are being considered as an open-air transportation option, the absence of improved standards and available insurance for e-scooter riders, coupled with lack of enforcement resources, would risk the safety of riders and the public on the City’s streets and sidewalks, especially for people with disabilities.”

The City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee said that there would be a need for insurance to cover injuries both to the e-scooter rider and an injured pedestrian. We would add that there would also be a need for insurance to cover damage to property due to e-scooter use, and injuries and property loss due to motor vehicle accidents caused by e-scooter use e.g. if a car needs to swerve to avoid an e-scooter, and ends up in a collision causing personal injuries, death and/or property loss.

The City staff February 25, 2021 presentation concluded in substance that no acceptable insurance solutions for the needs that the City staff identified are now established. Solutions that the industry proposed are not sufficient. For example, the industry proposed that a fund be established to cover losses due to e-scooters. City staff were not satisfied that revenues from a fee to be imposed on each e-scooter ride could cover the funds needed for claims and for the infrastructure that would have to be set up to administer such a new claims fund.

We add that whatever be worked out regarding insurance, the e-scooter rental companies should be assigned first and primary liability for any injuries or losses that are caused to anyone by the use of their vehicles. If they want to make their product available in Toronto, in order to make profits, they should shoulder the costs that are caused to others by the use of their product.

In Ontario, a car’s owner is primarily liable for injuries or losses caused by the car, and not just the driver. There is no reason to exempt the e-scooter rental companies from that wise approach. Otherwise, it gives a massive undeserved financial windfall for the e-scooter rental companies.

In the end, insurance, even if properly available, does not eliminate or reduce the dangers to the public including people with disabilities, seniors, children or others. It presupposes that members of the public will be injured by e-scooters. They will have to shoulder the hardships and high costs of bringing law suits to recover damages. Money can help, but cannot eliminate the physical pain, the loss of abilities, and the other hardships that a serious personal injury and civil litigation can inflict. It would be wrong to proceed on the basis that so long as there is sufficient insurance in place, there is no need to worry about the dangers to safety and disability accessibility that e-scooters will create.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Bird complained that third party e-scooter insurance does not exist in North America, that it is not required anywhere else in North America, and that it is not mandated or provided for Bike Share TO. Yet these provide no reason for dismissing insurance issues addressed here, or the need for there to be proper insurance in place. It just gives another compelling reason why Toronto should not lift the ban on e-scooters.

 6. A Pilot with E-Scooters in Toronto Would Endangers Public Safety and Disability Accessibility, and Exposes The City to Major Financial Claims

There are times where it is worthwhile for the City of Toronto to conduct a pilot project with an innovation, to see if it is suitable for wider adoption. However, Toronto should not conduct a pilot project with e-scooters. There are a number of reasons for this. Each, standing alone, is sufficient to reject that idea. Rejecting a pilot here does not mean Toronto is rejecting the idea of ever conducting pilots in other areas of policy that do not present e-scooters’ dangers.

It is essential to expose why e-scooter corporate lobbyists press so hard for a pilot. They do so purely for tactical marketing reasons. They want their product on the Toronto streets, to build their market. They want to shift the burden to those opposing e-scooters to have to fight an uphill battle to get e-scooters removed, once entrenched. They want the inertia to favour them. They want the City to invest money in their product’s entrenchment, so it will be easier to secure a permanent foothold in this city. They want to point to Toronto to leverage other cities to follow suit.

First, there is no real need for an e-scooter pilot in Toronto. No one has identified an appropriate purpose for an e-scooter pilot. A pilot is conducted to answer specific questions, identified in advance. If the pilot is to ascertain if some people would like to ride e-scooters, we know from other cities that they do. If it is to find out if e-scooters will ride on sidewalks even if banned from sidewalks, we have ample evidence that they do. Indeed we already have first-hand proof that e-scooters are freely and openly ridden on Toronto sidewalks even when they are entirely illegal in Toronto.

If the question to be considered is weather e-scooters endanger public safety and disability accessibility, we have sufficient proof from other cities that they do. There is nothing about Toronto or Torontonians that make these dangers any less than for other cities that have allowed e-scooters. To the contrary, City staff’s June 24, 2020 report shows ways in which Toronto presents added problems, if e-scooters are allowed here. It concluded:

“In addition to the experiences in other jurisdictions, several risk factors are unique to the City of Toronto and play a role in informing the recommended approach to e-scooters:

Streetcar tracks: Toronto has an extensive track network (177 linear kilometres) which poses a hazard to e-scooter riders due to the vehicle’s small wheel diameter.

Winter and State-Of-Good-Repair: Toronto experiences freezing and thawing that impacts the state-of-good-repair for roads. A large portion of roads are 40 to 50 years old, with 43 per cent of Major Roads and 24 per cent of Local Roads in poor condition. Coupled with lack of standards for e-scooter wheels (e.g., traction, size), this makes this particular device more sensitive to uneven road surfaces.

High construction activity: In addition to the city’s various infrastructure projects, Toronto has been one of the fastest growing cities with about 120 development construction sites in 2019.

Narrow sidewalks and high pedestrian mode shares in the Downtown Core and City Centres: Most jurisdictions experienced illegal sidewalk riding by e-scooter users, with some business districts saying e-scooters deterred patrons from visiting their previously pedestrian-friendly main streets. This is especially challenging with physical distancing requirements and other COVID-19 recovery programs expanding the use of the City’s sidewalks and boulevards.”

Second, it is universally accepted that it is utterly wrong to conduct an experiment on human beings without their consent. This is especially so where it is known in advance that the experiment poses a danger to them. Imagine the liability that a government would risk if it subjected people to a trial COVID-19 vaccine without their consent, to find out if it works and if it has any dangerous side-effects.

An Toronto e-scooter pilot would be a human experiment without the consent of those endangered by it. This is revealed by the City staff’s presentation at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting. For purposes of gathering data on injuries caused by e-scooters, City staff spoke of collecting data from hospitals before a pilot, during a pilot and after a pilot. City staff explained that the burdens on hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic precluded their being able to gather the kind of data needed before an e-scooter pilot could begin.

Toronto should not follow Ottawa’s reckless conduct. Ottawa conducted a pilot project with e-scooters right in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, without putting in place effective measures for tracking injuries. The Ottawa mayor’s office told AODA Alliance Chair David Lepofsky on the night before the pilot’s approval that if people get injured, they can file complaints. Ottawa unfairly shifted the burden to e-scooter victims to produce evidence of harm they suffered, rather than proactively preventing the harm in advance or ensuring that it is accurately tracked during that pilot.

In these circumstances, if Toronto conducts an e-scooter pilot, it risks facing major financial claims by people injured by e-scooters. As noted earlier, injured victims can be expected to argue, as a factor substantially increasing their right to a large damage award that the City of Toronto decided to subject them to the dangers of an e-scooter human experiment without their consent, having been warned in advance of the safety and accessibility dangers that e-scooters create. That claim for damages would be fortified by the fact that the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee twice unanimously recommended against conducting a pilot project with e-scooters, after receiving compelling evidence from multiple sources on the safety and accessibility dangers they pose.

Third, the City staff’s June 24, 2020 report shows that in important ways, the proper legal and operational groundwork has not been done at the provincial or federal level, needed for a pilot project. That report concluded:

* “Although the HTA sets out some e-scooter standards, such as maximum speed and power wattage, due to the nature of urban and suburban conditions such as Toronto’s, City staff recommend that the Province strengthen the device standards for greater rider safety. Based on an extensive literature review, items recommended for further Provincial exploration include a maximum turning radius, a platform surface grip, wheel characteristics (e.g., minimum size, traction, tire width), braking and suspension.

In addition, the Province has not established set fine amounts for offences under the HTA e-scooter regulations. Without this in place, for the police to lay a charge in respect of a violation, a “Part III Summons” is required, which means the police must attend court for each charge laid regardless of severity, and a trial is required for a conviction and fine to be set. This may make it less likely that charges are laid. Fines outside of ones the City could set (e.g. e-scooter parking violations, illegal sidewalk riding) would create workload challenges for Police and courts.

In spite of the Pilot requirement to collect data, there is currently no vehicle type for e-scooters in the Ministry of Transportation’s (MTO) Motor Vehicle Collision Report (MVCR) template used by all police services to report collisions. Unless the Province specifies e-scooters are motor vehicles for the purposes of collision reporting, and has a field for this in its template, e-scooter collisions may not be reported reliably and meaningful collision data analysis will not be possible. In Fall 2019, City staff requested that the MTO add e-scooters as a separate vehicle type, but MTO has not yet communicated they would make this change.”

If Toronto wishes to gather still more information about e-scooters, it should do so without conducting its own pilot experiment on Torontonians, by looking to the personal injuries and disability accessibility barriers that e-scooters created in other cities.

 7. E-Scooter Corporate Lobbyists Have Proposed No Effective Solutions that Will Solve the Problems E-scooters Would Create

City Council will want to know if there are “compromises” i.e. solutions that could allow e-scooters while not making Torontonians suffer from their dangers. The AODA Alliance urges that Toronto should not “compromise” on the safety of its residents. Especially during COVID-19, our political leaders have emphasized that public safety is their number one priority. That should be the case here as well. Compromising on accessibility for people with disabilities should be out of the question, especially when it comes to the danger of creating new accessibility barriers that would compound the many barriers that people with disabilities now suffer from in Toronto.

That said, the question remains whether there are solutions that would not compromise on public safety or on the impermissible creation of new accessibility barriers. City staff commendably gave the e-scooter corporate lobbyists an ample open opportunity to present practical solutions to the dangers that e-scooters create, if such solutions exist. City staff held a meeting with 29 representatives of the e-scooter rental companies on January 20, 2021. E-scooter corporate lobbyists also had the chance to bring solutions to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021.

e-scooter companies have a strong financial incentive to present workable solutions. This would open up the highly-desirable Toronto market to them. They are well –positioned to try out effective solutions elsewhere, if there are any. This is because they operate e-scooter rental operations in a number of other cities.

Those companies are well-aware of their need to come up with solutions. The disability community has been raising our disability-related concerns regarding e-scooters for over a year and a half. Such concerns have been raised in other cities.

Despite these opportunities, e-scooter corporate lobbyists presented no solutions that would in fact solve the serious dangers that e-scooters pose. The February 2021 written staff report and the staff oral presentation on February 25, 2021 to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee reviewed key solutions that the e-scooter corporate lobbyists presented to City staff. City staff correctly concluded that none effectively solved the problems that e-scooters present, but impose costs on the taxpayer. The February 25, 2021 City staff presentation stated:

“”Potential solutions to address e-scooter sidewalk riding

  • Protected bike lane/micromobility network and placing e-scooter parking on-street so that trips begin/end off the sidewalk
  • Field staff/ambassadors/patrols and enforcement teams
  • Visible, unique identifiable plate numbers (licence plates for rental fleets)
  • E-scooter sidewalk riding detection technologies* (*emerging technology)

Other proposals to address e-scooter sidewalk riding

  • Geofencing pedestrian areas or slow zones
  • Education and warnings (by companies) and fines for riders (by police)
  • Suspensions/bans on repeat offenders (by companies)
  • Decals on sidewalks and signage
  • Audible warnings on the device for the rider and pedestrians

Potential solutions to address improper e-scooter parking

  • Adequate supply of parking areas (and fleet size caps/reviews)
  • Proper parking verification (photo selfies and/or other technologies)
  • Field staff/patrols and enforcement teams (1-2 hr service standards or better)
  • Braille/tactile and unique identifiable numbers on e-scooters (licence plates for rental fleets)
  • Docked stations* like Bike Share Toronto (*dockless preferred or hybrid by companies)

Other proposals for improper e-scooter parking

  • Education and incentives (e.g., discounts for proper parking or penalties for repeat offenders by companies; or fines to the companies that are passed onto the repeat offenders)
  • “Lock-to” parking mechanism (similar to a bicycle lock)
  • Double kick-stand (less likely to topple over); and
  • Onboard diagnostics indicating the device has toppled over.
  • Photo of e-scooter being locked to a hand railing at steps to an entrance by a man wearing a bicycle helmet and business casual work clothes.
  • Photo of e-scooter locked to bicycle parking with a cable. The bike parking is in the shape of a metal loop attached to the sidewalk in San Francisco with a bike lane painted green in the background.”

The City staff’s February 25, 2021 presentation also stated:

“Accessibility Feedback on Proposed Solutions…

Technologies are still emerging and not adequate yet:

  • Geofencing and other technologies to prevent sidewalk riding are not sophisticated enough and would only apply to rental e-scooters.
  • Docking stations for e-scooters has potential but is still in development.
  • Lock-to cables on e-scooters mean they could be locked anywhere (e.g., café fence/railing) including in spots blocking entrance access and paths of travel.
  • There is already a lack of bike parking so this would worsen the number of sidewalk obstructions on narrow and cluttered sidewalks.
  • If Bike Share Toronto were dockless, there would not be enough bike rings to lock the rental fleet… same for dockless rental e-scooter fleets.

Accessibility Feedback on Proposed Solutions

Not enough city resources for enforcement and infrastructure priorities

  • Oversight is very labour- and resource-intensive and depends on enforcement, which is already stretched or non-existent in parts of the City.
  • Licence plates on rental e-scooter fleets could help, but this is a reactive tool and would be a drain on city resources to monitor and enforce.
  • Bigger priorities for limited city resources.
  • Inadequate infrastructure is a bigger priority – not enough sidewalk space or accessible infrastructure; not enough bike lanes/bike lane space; and not enough public transit.
  • Importance of other city priorities before allowing something which poses a hazard and a nuisance for pedestrians and persons with disabilities.

Accessibility Feedback on Proposed Solutions

Impacts on seniors and persons with disabilities on sidewalks

  • COVID-19 has resulted in challenges for persons with disabilities, their caregivers and pedestrians who use sidewalks as a necessity and not for recreation.
  • Allowing e-scooters will pose hazards that affect persons with disabilities, seniors, their caregivers and pedestrians.
  • Risk of severe injury for seniors or persons with disabilities if tripping and falling or struck by an e-scooter.
  • Inability to identify e-scooter rider because of their speed, and that the person’s credit card on the app may not be the person riding the e-scooter.”

The e-scooter corporate lobbyists presented no information that refuted the City staff assessment of these solutions. None of the information presented by City staff either in its February 2021 report or their February 25, 2021 oral presentation to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee demonstrated any need to subject Torontonians to these dangers in a “pilot project” to see if they would materialize in Toronto. No information was presented to suggest that Toronto would somehow be exempt from these dangers, if it allows e-scooters.

We add the following, which reinforces the City staff’s presentation. Toronto has bike lanes, but it is not a contained network. Moreover, extensive law enforcement would be needed to ensure compliance. Both creating the network and such law enforcement imposes substantial costs on the public. The public should not be required to build massive new infrastructure to let the e-scooter corporate lobbyists make their profits.

At most such bike paths are described as helpful as encouraging e-scooter riders not to ride on sidewalks. Yet such “encouragement” is no assurance that they will comply.

City staff reported that a proposed solution was to use technology such as “geo-fencing” to prevent e-scooters from riding on sidewalks. Using GPS or other technology, the e-scooter itself would supposedly electronically detect when it is going somewhere where it is not allowed to go. City staff correctly concluded that the technology to do this accurately and reliably simply does not exist. We agree. We add that anyone who uses a GPS for directions know that they are not accurate enough to pinpoint whether an e-scooter is on the sidewalk, or mere inches away on the road.

Even if geo-fencing did work, it would only restrict rented e-scooters and not privately owned e-scooters. Yet both rented and privately-owned e-scooters create dangers to people with disabilities.

Lime said that such sidewalk detection technology could help with reminding riders afterwards. The e-scooter rental company could call the offending rider afterwards. Including those with multiple cases of it. This wrongly relies on e-scooter companies with a conflict of interest to lead this activity. It only addresses the problem after the danger has been created, rather than preventing barriers from being created in the first place. Waiting for multiple infractions does not protect the public from one-time riders. This all presumes without proof that the e-scooter companies can effectively track this.

Another proposal from the industry was to have staff educate e-scooter riders. If these staff are to be provided by the City, that would be an unwarranted cost burden on the taxpayer. Even if these staff were to be provided by the e-scooter companies, there would be no realistic possibility of them being situated all over the city to ensure that they reach all or even most e-scooter riders. E-scooter riders would have no obligation to spend time listening to them. There is no assurance that this education would reach many e-scooter riders, or that it would change their behaviour.

The industry’s proposal to require a visible identifiable number to be located on each e-scooter can be partially helpful. However that alone will not materially reduce the problems we have identified.

If an e-scooter rider violates the law, it is not conclusive proof of the rider’s identity to identify the number on the e-scooter, even if a victim can accurately identify that number. The e-scooter companies would have to make available to the public their internal records of rentals, account holders and vehicle numbers. Moreover, the e-scooter rider may not be the same person as the name on the account charged for the e-scooter. This alone would not be sufficient assured proof in court to establish the rider’s identity.

This is also no solution for pedestrians who see a law-breaking e-scooter from the side or from behind, or where the e-scooter is racing too quickly for the pedestrian to read the identification number. Moreover, offending e-scooter riders will quickly learn to cover up the identification number. This solution also depends on the public financing enough law enforcement to catch and successfully prosecute offenders.

Another measure proposed was to add braille and tactile letters to an e-scooter, to enable a person with vision loss to identify it. This presupposes that a person with vision loss trips over an improperly parked e-scooter, and then gropes all over it to find an accessible braille or raised letter identifier. That in turn presupposes that the victim knows that such labels are available, and is prepared to try this groping. This is, far fetched. It also leaves people with vision loss exposed to the e-scooter tripping hazard in the first place.

Lime Canada proposed to the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021 that E-scooter rental companies could require renters to photograph how they park an e-scooter, and send the photo to the rental company for monitoring. This provides no real public protection. The renter could move the e-scooter right after sending in that photograph.

Similarly, it would be problematic to rely on rental companies to impose or collect fines. This would lack needed law enforcement public accountability and safeguards. The public would have to trust the e-scooter companies. Law enforcement should never be parcelled out to a private for-profit company that has such an obvious conflict of interest. Moreover, if the fine is retained by the e-scooter company, that would simply add to their profits.

The industry proposed that they could suspend multiple violators from being able to rent an e-scooter. However, this requires the many serious impediments to proving a violation and a violator’s identity to first be overcome, e.g. the need for massive increases in law enforcement to detect violators. Moreover, a suspended person could simply use a new credit card to create a new account and then resume riding e-scooters.

The industry’s proposal to increase law enforcement would shift more financial burdens to the taxpayer. It also presupposes that if Toronto were to increase its law enforcement spending, e-scooters should be a top priority. We would suggest that there are now other law enforcement priorities that would compete for attention, e.g. ensuring that the public obeys public social distancing requirements during the pandemic.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime conceded that drunk e-scooter riding will require an “enforcement component”. It said there are “some tech tools that some of the companies would come up with to help identify an impaired e-scooter driver. The industry could then deny the intoxicated rider a ride. There is no suggestion that this intoxication technology exists, or that it has been effectively deployed anywhere

The industry proposed that it could message riders regarding restrictions on e-scooter use. This assumes that voluntary compliance would be sufficient. There is no indication that this has been tried and worked in other cities. We would not dispense with drivers licenses and the related training in exchange for car companies messaging their customers on where they are permitted to drive their cars.

The industry proposed that sidewalks could be marked with notifications not to ride e-scooters there. City staff correctly noted that this would create visual clutter. There are many kilometers of sidewalks that would require this. We add that here again, the e-scooter corporate lobbyists once again propose shifting major costs to the taxpayer to enable them to make their profits. It also presupposes that those who illegally would ride e-scooters on sidewalks only do so because they didn’t know it is forbidden, rather than because they don’t have to fear effective law enforcement.

City staff rejected a proposal that e-scooters emit an audible sound. We note that this measure may help somewhat in overcoming the dangers of e-scooters due to their now being silent. However, this would not overcome the dangers when e-scooters are lying on the sidewalk, blocking pedestrians, nor would this prevent injuries when collisions occur. Moreover, these sounds would have to be loud enough to alert a pedestrian well in advance, so that they can try to evade a fast-moving e-scooter racing towards them.

City staff noted that the industry proposed that e-scooter parking be located on the street, to reduce the chances of them being ridden on the sidewalk. We note that with street parking now at a premium, especially in downtown Toronto where the traffic is often congested, there are harms that would flow from further reducing street parking. From a disability perspective, if any new street parking were to be re-allocated, it should be for more disability parking spots, and not for e-scooters.

Moreover, by having e-scooters parked on the street, this would not in any real way reduce the danger of e-scooters being ridden on the sidewalk. An e-scooter rider could simply continue to ride on the sidewalk and then at the end of their ride, park on the street, if permitted.

To address the problems of parking e-scooters, the industry proposed, among other things, providing them with more e-scooter parking locations. This impinges on limited parking spaces already available in Toronto, as noted above. It also shifts yet another cost to the taxpayer, who would be providing free parking for the corporate lobbyists to make their profit.

The option of providing docking stations was discussed. It burdens the taxpayer with providing the space and paying for the docking stations. It adds to urban clutter.

The industry proposed technology to ensure that e-scooters are parked properly. Yet unless there is a huge supply of staff to monitor this, it will not prevent danger to people with disabilities and others before injuries and accessibility barriers impede people with disabilities.

The industry proposed having a patrol team from e-scooter companies to explore and remedy complaints. City staff said that where tried, the minimum service standard has been one to two hours after a violation is reported by the public, especially during a pilot project. We respond that that leaves the danger to pedestrians in place, and only rectifies it after the fact. It also unfairly burdens pedestrians with having to call in complaints, and indeed, with having to know how to do so and at what number. That depends on a chain of events that is not reliable.

Consideration was given for e-scooter companies to provide rate incentives for those who park properly, such as discounts, or rate penalties for those who do not park them properly. That requires someone to effectively police where each e-scooter is parked. The option of fining the e-scooter company directly for improperly parking the e-scooter raised the concern that the e-scooter company could just pass this cost on to the users, rather than it serving to ensure proper parking of e-scooters. Here again, this presupposes that there is the deployment of ample law enforcement deployed all over the city that has time to conduct all the needed enforcement for e-scooters.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, industry representatives gave major priority to the solution of “lock-to”. A cable is attached to the e-scooter so that when parked, it can be locked to a pole or other object. However, this is no solution at all. It still exposes people with disabilities to e-scooters being left all over the place in unpredictable public locations, as new accessibility barriers and tripping hazards. It wrongly converts our sidewalks and other public places into free parking for the e-scooter industry, with the public substantially subsidizing their profits.

Bird claimed at that meeting that the problem of e-scooters being ridden on sidewalks would be dramatically reduced if riders could lock up a rental e-scooter on the sidewalk, using the “lock to” option. It defies logic to argue that this solves the problem of riding e-scooters on sidewalks. A person would ride an e-scooter on a sidewalk, rather than the road, to avoid cars or the many potholes in our roads. Where one can park the e-scooter at the end of the ride does not dictate whether one chooses to ride on the sidewalk rather than the adjacent road en route to one’s destination.

The industry proposed having each e-scooter equipped with a double kickstand to reduce the risk of them falling over when parked. That suffers from the same problems as the lock-to proposal.

Similarly, the industry’s proposal that each e-scooter have an onboard diagnostic mechanism to indicate if the e-scooter has toppled over also has the same deficiencies. It also assumes that the e-scooter companies will flood the city with enough people to immediately remove such an e-scooter before someone trips over it.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime proposed that the industry could share big data with city officials e.g. if there are locations where there are repeat problems with e-scooters. If this is shown the City might wish to protect the public by creating new infrastructure. By this, it appears to mean that if there is a route where e-scooter riders repeatedly ride on the sidewalk, the City might wish to build a separate path.

By this, the industry concedes the risk of repeat violators. It shifts to the public the financial burden of building new infrastructure to avoid people being injured by e-scooters. It provides no assurance that riders who repeatedly use those sidewalks will stop doing so once a separate bike path is built.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime Canada also says that in the shorter term, this could help focus enforcement on those corridors. That too exposes pedestrians to the dangers of e-scooters, and shifts to the public the cost of additional law enforcement.

At the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime claimed that education of riders along with enforcement are “very good tools”. Yet enforcement is a major public cost burden. It starts from the premise that the e-scooter has already caused harm.

We add that Toronto cannot rely on education of riders, since a rider can rent an e-scooter without having to ever speak to a human being from the e-scooter rental company, from whom they could receive that education. Moreover, Lime Canada conceded that education alone is “not enough” to solve the admitted problem of people riding e-scooters on sidewalks. It conceded as well and that there must be “a degree of enforcement” (though it did not specify how much enforcement it conceded to be necessary).

As explained earlier, an e-scooter is a motor vehicle. Nevertheless, Lime’s solution for the problem of bikes creating accessibility barriers when left on sidewalks is to regulate them as if they were non-motorized bikes. Yet that would simply add to sidewalk barriers. In effect, the industry sought the lowest and most permissive degree of regulation possible, with the least accountability.

For decades, our society has regulated motor vehicles far more extensively than bikes. We require the vehicle and driver to each be licensed and insured. We require the driver to complete sufficient training, including safety training under proper supervision, before being allowed to drive in public. Licenses are gradually graduated for drivers as their experience grows. Vehicles must meet rigorous safety standards. In contrast, the e-scooter rental industry seeks to evade all of those regulations, as if an e-scooter were not a motorized vehicle.

 8. E-scooter Corporate Lobbyists’ Numerous False, Misleading and Exaggerated Claims Further Show Why Toronto Should Reject Their Dangerous E-scooter Proposals

The e-scooter corporate lobbyists’ misleading false and claims, flights of extreme exaggerations and flights of illogic are breathtaking. Toronto Mayor John Tory, City Council and City staff should take their claims with at least a grain ton of salt. They should insist on strong corroboration before accepting any of their claims.

The AODA Alliance’s October 30, 2020 report revealed that these corporate lobbyists have been inundating Toronto City Hall with a huge, well-financed relentless, feeding frenzy of lobbying in the back rooms. Some Councillors have told us that this is one of the biggest, if not the biggest corporate lobbying effort now at City Hall. The AODA Alliance ‘s October 30, 2020 report on this lobbying feeding frenzy gives insight into why in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic when other pressing issues should be a priority, Toronto’s municipal politicians are so seriously considering unleashing e-scooters in Toronto, despite their amply-documented dangers to people with disabilities, seniors and others.

That report shows that entries in Toronto’s official Lobbyist Registry, filling fully 73 pages, reveal that in just the two years from June 2018 to the present, eight e-scooter rental companies and three lobbying firms have documented fully 1,384 contacts with City Hall in person, by phone, by virtual meeting or by email. Among these were at least 112 meetings with City officials and 1,153 emails. These figures only include contacts which corporate lobbyists opted to record in the Toronto Lobbyist Registry during that period.

Amidst this onslaught of corporate lobbyists’ approaches were a dizzying 94 contacts with the Mayor’s Office, including 10 with Mayor Tory himself, 58 with the Mayor’s Senior Advisor, Legislative Affairs Daniela Magisano, 15 with Mayor Tory’s Director of Legislative Affairs Edward Birnbaum, 10 with his Chief of Staff Luke Robertson, and 1 with Mayor Tory’s Deputy Chief of Staff Courtney Glen. As well, among these documented contacts are 368 contacts with members of City Council, 479 contacts with staff of members of council, as well as 352 contacts with other City staff, among others (We surmise that the corporate lobbyists may not have reached a few janitors).

Beyond those address earlier in this brief, corporate lobbyists’ public presentations in support of e-scooters at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting and the earlier July 9, 2020 Toronto Infrastructure and Environment Committee meeting, are replete with the following ten additional falsehoods, exaggerations, and transparently bogus arguments. That they must resort to such meritless arguments to offer further shows that their proposals lack real merit.

As a first example, Bird told the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that an important question is whether City Hall continues to ignore the number of e-scooter riders on city streets today, despite the current ban on them, or whether Toronto chooses to regulate this space with “sensible regulations?” It argued that Toronto should lift the ban on e-scooters because some people are now illegally riding privately-owned e-scooters in Toronto.

This falsely suggests that the proper solution to dangerous lawlessness is not to enforce the law, but instead to legalize the dangerous illegal activity. By that reasoning, Canada should lift the ban on unlawful assaults, and regulate assaults instead, since some people illegally assault others. Canada should now lift the ban on heroin and crack cocaine, because some people now illegally use those dangerous drugs.

Instead, the fact that some people are now flouting the law by illegally riding privately-owned e-scooters in Toronto is strong proof that we can expect more flouting of the law by rental e-scooter riders if their use is legalized but banned on sidewalks.

Similarly, Lime relied heavily on the false dilemma that either people will buy their own e-scooters without speed controls, or we can allow rental e-scooters with speed controls. Yet Toronto has the further option of enforcing the law against riding any e-scooters and confiscating any e-scooter ridden illegally in public. That would resolve the whole problem without a necessity of legalizing either owned or rental e-scooters.

Second, at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Bird misleadingly described the ban on e-scooters as a “temporary ban”. In fact, the legal ban on e-scooters in Toronto is permanent, unless City Council votes to lift it. Moreover, at present, it can only be lifted for under four years. After that the provincial ban on e-scooters goes back into effect.

Third, Bird told the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee on February 25, 2021 that Ottawa’s pilot with e-scooters is the “gold standard” by which Toronto should be guided, as if Ottawa’s experience provides an effective answer to public safety and disability accessibility concerns. Yet Toronto City staff presented earlier at that meeting that Ottawa City staff had not even collected e-scooter injury data. Later at that meeting, CNIB deputed that during the Ottawa pilot, e-scooters were operated unsafely and left in pedestrian clearways throughout the downtown. This caused accessibility barriers and safety hazards. Despite all this, Ottawa is expanding their e-scooter fleet. That means that a key purpose of the pilot, to see their impact on injuries, was disregarded by Ottawa.

CNIB held a public meeting to get feedback from people with vision loss about their experience during the Ottawa e-scooter pilot. It heard alarming stories of safety hazards posed to people with vision loss by e-scooters. There was unsafe operating of e-scooters, regular illegal sidewalk riding of e-scooters and improperly parking e-scooters. 1On a survey about the pilot, 69% of respondents encountered wrongly parked e-scooters. 72% of survey respondents encountered sidewalk riding.

Ottawa City Council nevertheless approved e-scooters for a second pilot despite the staggering data the City itself collected. CNIB warned Toronto not to follow the Ottawa experience. That a leading, e-scooter corporate lobby could point to Ottawa as “the goal standard” shows how dramatically antithetical they are to the vulnerability of people with disabilities.

Lime claimed that in Ottawa, the votes to continue the e-scooter program were nearly unanimous. That only shows the devastating reach of the e-scooter corporate lobbyists.

Fourth, Bird tried to portray e-scooters as an important mobility aid for people with disabilities. The industry tried to appear as if it were advocating in favour of expanded accessibility for people with disabilities when its core business in fact endangers accessibility for people with disabilities.

Lime claimed at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that they embrace the goal of accessibility for people with disabilities. It told that meeting that 8% of their riders have physical disabilities and use e-scooters as “a liberating tool to explore the city”. Yet e-scooters are not viewed as adaptive disability mobility devices in the disability community.

Lime provided no independently-verified objective evidence to support the claim that 8% of e-scooter riders have physical disabilities. They would seem to have no way to verify this, since their rental customers do not interact with Lime staff when renting an e-scooter. Moreover, even if some e-scooter riders have some sort of physical disability, there is no proof of how many, if any, need the e-scooter to meet a disability mobility need. It is important not to confuse a bona fide disability power scooter, in which a person with a disability is seated, and one of Lime’s very different rental e-scooters on which a rider must stand and balance themselves, while travelling much faster than a disability scooter can.

Fifth, Lime made the over-inflated if not bogus claimed at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that allowing e-scooter rentals will help with recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. This is because people will use an e-scooter to go to stores to shop.

Yet e-scooters are not supposed to be used to transport anything other than the person riding it, such as goods bought in stores. It presumes that e-scooter renters can leave their e-scooter scattered anywhere near any store they wish to visit. This threatens the sidewalk litter, accessibility barriers and tripping hazards that e-scooters have presented in other cities like Ottawa. It presumes that those same shoppers would not go shopping, helping out our economy, had it not been for renting an e-scooter. There is no proof that there has been any such surge in economic activity provably linked to e-scooters.

Sixth, an example of misleading use of statistics was Lime’s claim at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that in Calgary, city data shows e-scooter injuries were far, far less than bike injuries. Even if there is such a statistic, it can easily be explained by the fact that there are far fewer e-scooters being ridden compared to the total number of bikes being ridden. Instead, the relevant statistic to use is the number of injuries per kilometer ridden. At that Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime and Bird did not use that relevant measure for injuries, when comparing different modes of travel, whether cars, bikes or e-scooters. They therefore did not account for how many of each kind of vehicle is on the road, or how far they are driven before causing an injury, or the severity of the injury they cause.

Seventh, Lime argued that rental e-scooters have the added protection of in-built speed limits and geo-fencing capabilities, which are not included in e-scooters that people privately buy. As well, as noted earlier, City staff correctly concluded that geo-fencing is not now a reliable technology. As well, to allow rental e-scooters does not assure that people won’t also ride privately-owned e-scooters. Lime advanced the false dilemma that either people will buy their own e-scooters without speed controls, or Toronto can allow rental e-scooters with speed controls. Yet there is the further and preferred option of effectively enforcing the ban on riding any and all e-scooters, and confiscating any illegally-ridden e-scooters.

Eighth, Lime claimed at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that there have been no deaths due to rental scooters because they have speed controls. This claim is dubious. It requires proof that a pedestrian, hit by an oncoming e-scooter at 22 KPH, cannot be killed, but one colliding at 30 or 40 KPH can be killed. No proof of such a medical improbability has been provided.

Ninth, Lime made the unsubstantiated claim at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting that e-scooters have a much higher parking compliance rate than do cars. Even if this were assumed to be true, the question is not whether to ban cars. It is whether to allow e-scooters which will create new safety dangers and new disability accessibility barriers. Moreover, cars, even when improperly parked, are not typically left strewn about sidewalks as a tripping hazard and accessibility barrier.

Tenth, at the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting, Lime made the quite exaggerated claim that most major cities outside Toronto had embraced e-scooters, and that unlike Toronto, e-scooters have met with virtually universal acclaim in cities that tried them. This is shown to be misleading, in light of the following information included in the City staff’s presentation to the February 25, 2021 Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee meeting:

“Large Urban Peer Cities

  • Peer cities have banned rental/shared e-scooters from downtowns in Chicago and New York City.
  • No rental/shared e-scooters yet in places such as:
  • Montréal (not for 2021) or Vancouver
  • Massachusetts (e.g., City of Boston)
  • Pennsylvania (e.g., City of Philadelphia)
  • New South Wales (e.g., City of Sydney, Australia)
  • Scotland (e.g., City of Edinburgh), The Netherlands (e.g., Amsterdam), and
  • Others have banned or since banned them, e.g., Copenhagen (city centre), Houston, San Diego (boardwalk ban), etc.
  • NYC (outside of Manhattan only) and Transport for London (UK) pilots not yet underway.”

City staff noted that Montreal, which earlier did a pilot with e-scooters, will not have e-scooters in 2021. Vancouver does not have e-scooters. Hamilton and Mississauga allow privately owned e-scooters. We add that the City of Mississauga Accessibility Advisory Committee recommended that e-scooters not be allowed. We have seen no reason given for Mississauga rejecting that important accessibility recommendation.

City staff noted that London, Waterloo and Windsor are involved in some sort of public consultations on e-scooters which is slowed due to COVID-19. Calgary only allows e-scooter rentals, as is the case for all Alberta. Calgary allows e-scooters on sidewalks, and has no bike share program. Calgary will now allow some use of e-scooters on roads, to reduce sidewalk use.

Calgary staff advised their Council that it is likely that e-scooters have the highest injury rate per transportation mode. 43% of e-scooter injuries that were transported to hospital required surgery, which is twice the rate for bicycle injuries. In Calgary, 37% of e-scooter injuries had suspected intoxication.

City staff also reported that looking at large cities with similar large populations, similar urban densities and similar climate, Chicago and New York City ban rental e-scooters from their downtown areas. There are no rental e-scooters in Montreal, Vancouver, Massachusetts (e.g. Boston), Pennsylvania (such as Philadelphia), New South Wales (such as Sydney). Melbourne requires an e-scooter to have a maximum power of 200 watts. Most e-scooters require a higher wattage than that. There are no e-scooters in Scotland or the Netherlands. They have been banned in the city centre of Copenhagen, Houston, and San Diego’s boardwalk.



Source link