We Checked the Box. So Why Was I Still Stuck at the Door?

Why Ontario needs to measure accessibility by experience, not paperwork.

Accessibility experience Ontario should be measured by how people move through spaces in real life — not just whether accessibility requirements were technically met.

Yesterday, I went to a restaurant with an accessible entrance. There was a button. The kind with the wheelchair symbol. The kind that signals, you are welcome here.

I pressed it. The first door opened. For a moment, everything worked exactly as it was supposed to.

Then I moved forward and got stuck.

There were two doors, one after the other. I assume they were designed to manage temperature, keeping cold air out in the winter and cool air in during the summer. That makes sense. It is practical. It is understandable.

But in that moment, it did not feel accessible.

As I moved between the doors, staff rushed to help. One person tried to hold the second door open. Another gave directions. The person with me tried to guide my chair. One door hit the side of my chair. The other would not open fully. Everyone was trying to help, but no one seemed to know exactly what to do.

Including me.

Eventually, I made it inside.

But it was not smooth. It was not independent.

If my chair had been just a little wider, would I have made it through at all?

The gap we keep missing

Compliance tells us whether a rule was followed. Accessibility tells us whether a person can actually move through the world freely. Those are not the same thing. This is where accessibility experience Ontario becomes important.

Ontario’s accessibility system is built on the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA)

Ontario’s own legislative review and fourth independent review confirm Ontario is not on track and needs stronger outcome-based measurement.

What we measure shapes what we build

A more effective approach is an experience-based accessibility model. A stronger accessibility experience Ontario framework focuses on independence, usability, and real-world outcomes.

Barriers: What obstacles are people encountering?
Frequency: How often do they occur?
Resolution: How quickly are they fixed?
Experience: Can people move independently and with confidence?

Accessibility is not about whether a door opens. It is about whether someone can get through it with dignity.

Canada is starting to shift, but not far enough

Canada is working toward accessibility through the Accessible Canada Act

Programs and reporting requirements are outlined in Canada’s accessibility program

National outcomes are tracked through Statistics Canada’s disability data

These systems are still not fully connected and do not yet provide a clear measure of barrier reduction.

A stronger example: measuring outcomes

Australia’s Disability Strategy Outcomes Framework tracks whether people’s lives are improving across employment, education, health, and participation.

A governance lens that clarifies the issue

In governance and audit, frameworks from the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, commonly referred to as COSO, offer a useful lens.

COSO’s Internal Control framework focuses on whether rules and processes are followed. Ontario’s accessibility system is strong here.

But COSO also connects to Enterprise Risk Management, or ERM.

ERM asks where systems are most likely to fail, and whether those risks are being reduced.

The real risk is not non-compliance. The real risk is that barriers persist, even when systems appear compliant.

Where we go from here

This is not about criticizing effort. It is about improving outcomes.

If you are designing spaces, policies, or services, ask:

Can someone use this independently?
Have we tested this in real conditions?
Do we know where it might fail?

Because accessibility is proven in use.

And if you are unsure where to start, this is where an experience-based accessibility approach, like the one we use at BarrierFree Consulting, can help bring clarity, structure, and accountability.

Why Accessibility Experience Ontario Matters

Accessibility should not depend on luck, help, or chair size. It should simply work. Accessibility is not what we build. It is what people experience. Improving accessibility experience Ontario requires more than compliance, it requires understanding lived experience.