[
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "is%20there%20any%20case%20law%20in%20canada%20holding%20that%20the%20duty%20to%20accommodate%20people%20with%20disabilities%20under%20human%20rights%20legislation%20includes%20a%20duty%20not%20to%20create%20new%20barriers%20against%20people%20with%20disabilities%3F"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Yes \u2014 Canadian case law does recognize that the duty to accommodate persons with disabilities under human rights legislation includes a positive obligation *not to create new barriers* (and also to remove or prevent existing ones where reasonably possible). One of the central and most frequently cited cases is *Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc.* (\u201cVIA Rail\u201d) which clearly held that while not all barriers can or must be removed, there is a duty to prevent new ones from being introduced. ([scc-csc.lexum.com](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))\n\nHere\u2019s how the law has developed on this point, with key cases and legal principles:\n\n---\n\n## Key Case: VIA Rail\n\n- In *Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc.*, the Supreme Court made explicit that human rights law \u201cincludes a duty to prevent new [barriers], or at least not knowingly to perpetuate old ones where preventable.\u201d ([scc-csc.lexum.com](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))  \n- The decision involved new rail cars being purchased that were not wheelchair-accessible; VIA Rail tried to argue that their existing (older) fleet, which was to be phased out, could suffice. The Court rejected that, stating that pointing to old cars does *not* excuse creating new barriers or knowingly continuing or introducing standards that discriminate. ([scc-csc.lexum.com](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))  \n- VIA Rail was required to retrofit some of the newly purchased \u201cRenaissance\u201d rail cars. The standard is that accommodation (removing or alleviating barriers) must be carried out unless doing so causes undue hardship. ([decisions.scc-csc.ca](https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n## Other Relevant Jurisprudence and Legal Principles\n\n- According to the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC), it's part of the duty to accommodate that *no new barriers should be created, and any existing barriers should be removed progressively over time.* ([ohrc.on.ca](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/whether-para-transit-services-provided-public-transit-services-cities-toronto-hamilton-london-and-2?utm_source=openai))  \n- The same statement appears in policy and background materials examining the duty to accommodate more generally \u2014 that the obligation is both proactive (preventing new barriers) and remedial (removing existing ones). ([publications.gc.ca](https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2021/bdp-lop/bp/YM32-2-2012-01-2020-eng.pdf?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\n## Supporting Cases\n\n- *Central Okanagan School District No. 23 v. Renaud* (SCC, 1992): While this case is about religious accommodation, it establishes the framework that discrimination should be prevented and that duties to accommodate involve taking positive and reasonable steps unless undue hardship arises. ([ohrc.on.ca](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/whether-para-transit-services-provided-public-transit-services-cities-toronto-hamilton-london-and-2?utm_source=openai))  \n- *Davidson v. Canada Post* (2009): This Federal Court case involved autism-related accommodation, and affirmed that discriminatory standards must be scrutinized and changed if possible to remove barriers. While it mainly addresses employment settings and individual remedies, it reinforces the obligation on organizations not to maintain or introduce standards that have adverse effects when avoidable. ([ca.vlex.com](https://ca.vlex.com/vid/davidson-v-can-post-680691069?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\n## Legal Principles\n\nThese cases and the related human rights code / act provisions reflect these legal principles:\n\n1. **Proactive obligation**: The duty to accommodate is not just about responding to existing discrimination; it also requires preventing the creation of new discriminatory or exclusionary barriers. VIA Rail confirms this explicitly. ([scc-csc.lexum.com](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))\n\n2. **Removal of existing barriers**: While full removal may not always be immediately possible (due to cost, safety, etc.), there is a progressive obligation to remove existing barriers when it is reasonably practicable. ([ohrc.on.ca](https://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/whether-para-transit-services-provided-public-transit-services-cities-toronto-hamilton-london-and-2?utm_source=openai))\n\n3. **Balancing with undue hardship**: The duty is not unlimited. If removing or preventing a barrier causes \"undue hardship\" to the duty-holder (taking into account costs, logistics, etc.), then the duty may be limited. But creating a barrier deliberately, or neglecting opportunities to avoid introducing barriers, is generally not protected under undue hardship. ([scc-csc.lexum.com](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))  \n\n---\n\n## Summary\n\nSo in summary:\n\n- Yes, Canadian human rights jurisprudence (especially at the Supreme Court level) holds that the duty to accommodate includes a duty *not to create new barriers.* VIA Rail is a definitive case on this point.  \n- The duty also requires removing and not perpetuating barriers that are avoidable, unless doing so imposes undue hardship.  \n- These duties are well-established in both federal and provincial human rights law, and are reinforced by legislation, policy statements, and tribunals\u2019 decisions.\n\nIf you want, I can get you specific case citations in your jurisdiction (e.g. Ontario, BC, etc.), or provide recent tribunal decisions that apply this principle. Do you want those?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "please%20provide%20a%20precise%20pinpoint%20excerpt%20from%20Viarail%20that%20says%20this."
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Here is the precise excerpt from *Council of Canadians with Disabilities v. VIA Rail Canada Inc.*, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 650 (SCC) \u2014 with pinpoint references \u2014 that says the duty to accommodate includes a duty *not* to create new barriers (or knowingly perpetuate old ones):\n\n> \u201cTo permit VIA to point to its existing cars, which were to be phased out, and special service-based accommodations as a defence would be to overlook the fact that while human rights law includes an acknowledgment that not every barrier can be eliminated, it also includes **a duty to prevent new ones, or at least not knowingly to perpetuate old ones where preventable**.\u201d ([scc-csc.lexum.com](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))\n\nThat statement appears in the Supreme Court\u2019s written reasons in *VIA Rail*, at paragraph 169, in the section discussing the role of the Canadian Transportation Agency and human rights principles. ([scc-csc.lexum.com](https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/2352/index.do?utm_source=openai))"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "does%20balance%20for%20blind%20adults%20in%20Toronto%20offer%20training%20on%20how%20to%20use%20chromvox%3F"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "I could *not* find any specific, current indication that BALANCE for Blind Adults in Toronto explicitly offers **ChromeVox** training. However, I did find information that suggests related services where ChromeVox might be covered under broader assistive technology content. Here\u2019s what I found in detail:\n\n---\n\n## What BALANCE *Does* Offer\n\n1. **Assistive Technology Training**  \n   BALANCE provides one-on-one assistive technology training to clients, covering screen-readers like JAWS, NVDA, and VoiceOver, as well as screen magnification and other tools. However, **ChromeVox is not listed** by name among the examples. ([balancefba.org](https://www.balancefba.org/programs-and-services/technology-training/?utm_source=openai))\n\n2. **Workshops & Events**  \n   They run assistive technology workshops (both virtual and in-person) that explore built-in accessibility features, screen magnification, smart glasses, AI technologies, etc. These vary by topic and are scheduled through their Groups & Events Calendar. ChromeVox is not specifically named among topics, though the workshop format is flexible. ([balancefba.org](https://www.balancefba.org/programs-and-services/assistive-technology-workshops/?utm_source=openai))\n\n3. **Request Services**  \n   Through their \u201cRequest Services\u201d page, they specifically list Assistive Technology: \u201cTraining in the use of technology, such as **screen-readers (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver)**, computer, laptops, smart phones.\u201d ChromeVox is *not* mentioned. ([balancefba.org](https://www.balancefba.org/request-services/?utm_source=openai))\n\n4. **Other Related Programs**  \n   Their Apprenticeship Program involves training apprentices who then teach assistive tech to clients. Eligible applicants should have experience with screen-reading software, including JAWS, NVDA, etc. ChromeVox again is not explicitly listed. ([balancefba.org](https://www.balancefba.org/programs-and-services/at-apprenticeship-program/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\n## What I *Did Not* Find\n\n- No mention in BALANCE\u2019s current literature or online services of **ChromeVox** by name among screen-readers they teach or support.  \n- No workshop description found that clearly says \u201cChromeVox training.\u201d  \n- No client service or program that uses ChromeVox specifically in the examples given in their assistive technology training offerings.\n\n---\n\n## Likelihood and Next Steps\n\nGiven the breadth of screen-reader and accessibility software they *do* teach (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver, etc.), it is plausible that BALANCE might be willing to accommodate a request to train someone in ChromeVox, even if it's not explicitly listed. Because:\n\n- Their \u201cRequest Services\u201d process invites people to specify what assistive technology they need training in. BALANCE seems to tailor their training to the individual\u2019s goals and needs. ([balancefba.org](https://www.balancefba.org/request-services/?utm_source=openai))  \n- They list a wide range of screen-readers in their training programs, so ChromeVox is arguably close in category. ([balancefba.org](https://www.balancefba.org/programs-and-services/technology-training/?utm_source=openai))\n\n---\n\nIf you want, I can try contacting BALANCE\u2019s FAQ or recent communications to see if there's been any update post-August 2026 that adds ChromeVox by name. Would you prefer that?"
    },
    {
        "role": "user",
        "content": "please%20give%20a%20link%20to%20the%20page%20to%20request%20services%3F"
    },
    {
        "role": "assistant",
        "content": "Here is the link to BALANCE for Blind Adults\u2019 \u201cRequest Services\u201d page:\n\nBALANCE \u2014 Request Services page: https://www.balancefba.org/request-services/ ([balancefba.org](https://www.balancefba.org/request-services/?utm_source=openai))"
    }
]