(8) the door to entrance #2 was stuck on the day of the by-election;
(9) there was non-clearance of snow on the incline;
(10) the ramp on the inside of the Church was inadequate;
(11) there was a step and no handrails on both elections;
(12) there was inadequate spacing between tables in the polling stations in both elections; and
(13) EC accepts Mr. Hughes' description of the humiliation he felt and his evidence generally,
but not his characterization of "segregation".
Counsel for the Complainant and CCD point out that none of the above admissions in #112 were made in the Agreed Statement of Facts or prior to the commencement of the
hearing.
[57] I agree with Mr. Hughes' comment that the August 6 th letter was dismissive of his
Complaint. Essentially it says:
(1) St. Basil's Church provided "level access" as required by subsection 121(1) of the CEA. As
we now know, that was not the case, as entrance #1 was locked.
(2) EC "thoroughly" reviewed Mr. Hughes' Complaint, including interviewing election officers
and conducting an on-site inspection of the polling station. The August 6 th letter contains
many incorrect facts, resulting in incorrect conclusions.
(3) "It [St. Basil's Church] has three access doors which were unlocked during voting hours, two
of which provide level entry." Again, only entrance #1 provides a barrier-free pathway,
and it was locked.
(4) Mr. Hughes did not see the posted signs. EC did not call the RO or any EC official who was
present at St. Basil's that day to give evidence, nor did it enter into evidence the
investigative report. I have Mr. Hughes' evidence regarding the signs and I accept it.
(5) Every effort was made to keep the ramps cleared of snow on the advance poll and by-election
polling days. I accept Mr. Hughes' testimony to the contrary, that the efforts weren't
sufficient.
(6) "[O]ther disabled electors made use of these level access [entrances] without difficulty..."
(7) St. Basil's Church had been used in the 2004 and 2006 general elections and EC has no
record of any other accessibility complaint being made about the polling location. Of
course, one wouldn't know necessarily if a previous accessibility complaint had been
made, given that Mr. Roussel testified that EC doesn't have a system for logging such
complaints.
(8) None of the officials interviewed could remember anything about the comment made by the
official to Mr. Hughes regarding not having the money for accessibility accommodations
2010 CHRT 4 (CanLII)
(1) the long, sloped walk to entrance #2;
(2) the insufficient signage leading to entrance #2;
(3) the incline leading to entrance #2 had a slope of 1:8.8 (or 11.4%), which is significantly
steeper than the slope of 1:12 (or 8.25%) set out in EC's Accessible Facilities Guide;
(4) the doors to entrance #2 were heavy to open;
(5) only one of the doors to entrance #2 could be opened from the outside;
(6) with only one door open, entrance #2 was too narrow for a wheelchair to go through;
(7) this was a polling location in downtown Toronto. Better alternative locations exist.
During his argument, counsel to EC stipulated a few more facts concerning liability: