Building codes establish the rules for how structures are designed and built, including accessibility requirements. These codes shape the built environment for decades—decisions made during construction persist long after buildings are complete. Yet code development often happens with limited disability community input, enforcement is inconsistent, and even when codes are followed, they may set floors too low to achieve real accessibility. The gap between code requirements and actual accessibility needs demands attention.
How Building Codes Work in Canada
>Canada's building code system involves federal model codes and provincial adoption and adaptation. The National Building Code of Canada, developed by the National Research Council, serves as a model that provinces and territories modify for their jurisdictions. What's required in one province may differ from another.
>The code development process involves technical committees, public consultation, and lengthy review cycles. Changes take years to work through the system. By the time updated requirements are adopted, they may already lag behind best practices and technological developments.
>Local building departments enforce codes through permit processes and inspections. Enforcement capacity varies enormously. Well-resourced municipalities may catch violations; others may lack inspectors or expertise to ensure compliance. Code requirements on paper don't guarantee accessible construction in practice.
Accessibility Provisions in Codes
>Building codes include accessibility requirements that vary by building type and use. Multi-unit residential buildings, commercial properties, and public facilities have different requirements. Generally, the code requires some level of accessible features in new construction and significant renovations.
>Typical requirements include accessible entrances, accessible routes within buildings, accessible washrooms, elevator requirements for multi-story buildings, and specified percentages of accessible units in residential buildings. These requirements represent minimums that may not achieve full accessibility.
>The distinction between "barrier-free" and "accessible" matters. Code compliance may achieve barrier-free status without providing genuine accessibility for people with diverse disabilities. Someone using a wheelchair might access a space that remains inaccessible to someone with visual impairments or cognitive disabilities. Codes address some barriers more thoroughly than others.
Gaps Between Codes and Needs
>Current codes often fall short of actual accessibility needs in several ways. Required percentages of accessible units may not match actual demand. Accessibility features may address mobility but not sensory or cognitive accessibility. Common areas may be accessible while individual spaces remain problematic.
>Visitability—the principle that all housing should be visitable by people with disabilities even if not fully accessible throughout—isn't universally required. Most single-family homes have no accessibility requirements despite being the majority of housing stock. The ability to visit friends, family, and community members requires accessible homes that codes don't mandate.
>Evolving understanding of accessibility exposes code limitations. Requirements developed with wheelchair users in mind may not serve people with other mobility limitations, sensory disabilities, or cognitive differences. Codes updated to reflect broader understanding of disability would set different requirements.
Enforcement Challenges
>Code requirements mean nothing without enforcement. But enforcement systems have significant gaps that allow non-compliant construction to proceed.
>Permit review should catch accessibility problems before construction, but reviewers may lack accessibility expertise or time for thorough review. Inspection during and after construction should verify compliance, but inspectors may focus on safety issues more than accessibility. Gaps at either stage allow violations.
>Complaint-based enforcement assumes someone will notice and report violations. But people with disabilities may not visit buildings during construction, and violations may not be obvious to others. By the time accessibility problems are discovered, fixing them is expensive and may not happen.
>Penalties for violations are often insufficient to deter non-compliance. If fixing accessibility problems costs more than potential penalties, builders may calculate that violations are worth the risk. Enforcement with meaningful consequences would change this calculation.
Beyond New Construction
>Code requirements primarily apply to new construction and major renovations. The vast majority of existing buildings were built before current accessibility requirements and aren't required to upgrade unless significant renovation occurs.
>This grandfather effect means the accessible building stock grows slowly. Even with strong codes for new construction, decades would be needed to replace non-compliant buildings with accessible ones. Addressing the existing stock requires approaches beyond building codes.
>Renovation triggers that activate accessibility requirements vary. Some codes require accessibility upgrades when renovation exceeds certain thresholds; others apply requirements only to the renovated portions. Weak triggers allow major renovations to proceed without accessibility improvements.
Accessibility Standards Beyond Codes
>Some jurisdictions have accessibility standards that supplement or exceed building codes. The Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) includes built environment standards that add requirements beyond the building code. The Accessible Canada Act will eventually include federal accessibility regulations.
>CSA B651 (Accessible design for the built environment) provides detailed technical guidance that exceeds basic code requirements. This standard isn't automatically enforceable but can be referenced in codes, regulations, or contracts. Projects seeking to exceed code minimums often use this standard as a benchmark.
>Universal design principles go beyond minimum accessibility to create environments that work well for everyone. While codes establish floors, universal design aspires to optimal inclusion. Projects guided by universal design principles typically exceed code requirements significantly.
Accountability Mechanisms
>Ensuring accessible construction requires accountability mechanisms beyond initial code enforcement. These mechanisms can include ongoing accessibility requirements, complaint processes, and penalties for non-compliance discovered after construction.
>Human rights legislation provides one accountability path. People who encounter inaccessible buildings can file complaints alleging discrimination. This complaint-based approach puts burden on individuals rather than systems but does create some accountability for building owners and operators.
>Certification and audit programs in some jurisdictions require periodic accessibility verification for certain building types. These programs catch problems that develop over time—accessible features that are blocked, modified, or unmaintained—that initial construction inspection wouldn't address.
Improving the System
>Advocates for stronger building accessibility propose various improvements. Increased accessibility requirements in codes would raise minimums. Stronger enforcement would ensure requirements are met. Retrofit requirements would address existing non-compliant buildings. Enhanced accountability would create consequences for violations.
>Cost concerns invariably arise in discussions of stronger requirements. Building with accessibility features costs more than building without them, though the marginal cost for new construction is typically modest. The countervailing costs of inaccessibility—institutional care because accessible housing doesn't exist, exclusion from economic activity, diminished quality of life—rarely appear in cost analyses.
>Disability community involvement in code development could produce requirements that better reflect actual needs. Technical committees often lack disability expertise. Meaningful consultation goes beyond comment periods to genuine collaboration in setting requirements.
Questions for Reflection
>Should building codes require full accessibility in all new residential construction, including single-family homes? What would this mean for housing costs and availability?
>How should the costs of retrofitting existing buildings for accessibility be allocated? Should building owners bear full costs, or should public programs help fund accessibility improvements?
>What enforcement mechanisms would effectively ensure compliance with accessibility requirements, given current limitations in building inspection systems?