Building without parking, and the AODA question Council still has to answer

Kingston City Council has recently received a request to approve a 16-story residential building with 612 bedrooms. The developer proposes only 8–9 total parking spaces, with 2 designated as accessible — leaving no long-term resident parking, and none for family or visitors who may have accessibility needs.

Even before parking reductions, the City of Kingston zoning bylaw (Section 7.2.6) required 6 accessible spaces for buildings of this type. The proposal, therefore, is requesting relief to provide only one-third of an already insufficient baseline — a significant deviation from prior standards.

I want to be clear: I believe Council, staff, and the Province have acted in good faith to address Kingston's housing crisis. However, I think we may have inadvertently created a barrier for people with disabilities that none of us intended, and I'm hopeful we can work together to address this.

For many people with disabilities, a modified vehicle is an assistive device — legally and functionally equivalent to a wheelchair, walker, or any other mobility aid.

Under Canadian law, people with disabilities have the right to use assistive devices to access housing, services, and participate in community life. This right is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), and the duty to accommodate.

Just as we would never say 'this building has no elevator, so wheelchair users can't live here' or 'we don't provide ramps, so use the stairs or don't come' — we cannot say 'this building has no accessible parking, so people who need accessible vehicles can't live here.'

The vehicle — equipped with ramps, lifts, hand controls, or simply providing door-to-door transportation for someone who cannot walk distances — IS the assistive device that enables independent living.

For residents with disabilities: without accessible parking, individuals cannot live independently or access community services. When we reduce accessible parking below functional levels, we are effectively saying, 'You cannot use your assistive device here, therefore you cannot live here.' That constitutes discrimination under Ontario and Canadian law.

For visitors and family members: residents without accessibility needs may have family or friends with disabilities. If those visitors cannot park in accessible spaces, residents are effectively denied the right to receive support, maintain relationships, or participate fully in life. A parent who uses a wheelchair cannot help their student move in. A grandparent with mobility limitations cannot visit for dinner. The law recognizes discrimination by association, and current bylaws create exactly that scenario.

Accessible parking must therefore be treated as accommodation, not convenience — and cannot be reduced proportionally with general parking.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Section 15): Guarantees equality rights and protection from discrimination, which includes accessible housing and equal participation in community life.

Ontario Human Rights Code (Sections 1 and 2): Mandates accommodation for persons with disabilities, which extends to the use of vehicles as assistive devices.

Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA): Requires municipalities to ensure accessibility in infrastructure planning and design.

City of Kingston Official Plan: Commits the city to full accessibility. Bylaws permitting zero or minimal parking for accessible residents and guests conflict directly with this plan.

Current bylaws (2022-62 and 2022-63) reduce accessible parking proportionally with general parking. This approach fails to recognize a fundamental distinction: general parking is a convenience — people can choose transit, cycling, walking. Accessible parking is accommodation — it is not a choice, but a necessity for equal access. These must be treated differently in policy because they serve fundamentally different purposes.

Consider the parallel: we don't allow cash-in-lieu of wheelchair ramps. We don't grant variances to reduce the width of accessible doorways below code. We don't say 'pay a fee and you don't need to provide accessible washrooms.' Similarly, accessible parking minimums exist to ensure people can use their assistive devices to access housing — and those minimums should be maintained regardless of general parking reductions.

Even before Bill 23, a building of this size would require significantly more than 6 accessible spaces, accounting for both residents and visitors. Proper calculations should reflect occupancy, number of bedrooms, and anticipated accessibility needs based on local disability statistics.

According to the 2017 Canadian Survey on Disability, Kingston has a 31.1% disability rate for individuals aged 15 and over — the third-highest among all census metropolitan areas in Canada. Trends suggest this proportion is rising with an aging population. Estimates indicate that 20–50% of people with disabilities may require vehicle access, which would necessitate far more accessible parking than currently proposed.

This is not solely a municipal issue. Provincial building codes, parking regulations, and legislative changes have enabled this systemic problem. The Province of Ontario must be engaged to review policies and ensure alignment with human-rights obligations. Both the municipality and the province risk standing in offence of fundamental rights unless these policies are corrected.

1. Immediately pause approvals of developments under the current parking-reduction bylaws until a full review is conducted.

2. Engage experts in accessibility, disability data collection, and lived experience to establish accurate requirements for accessible parking that address both residents and guests/family.

3. Review and revise the relevant bylaws (2022-62 and 2022-63) to ensure full compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, and City of Kingston Official Plan commitments.

4. Explicitly recognize that vehicles function as assistive devices for people with disabilities, and that accessible parking minimums must be maintained regardless of general parking reductions. This could be achieved by adding language such as: 'Notwithstanding any provisions allowing reduction or elimination of parking requirements, accessible parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 7.2.6 of the Zoning Bylaw and AODA requirements, as vehicles may function as assistive devices for people with disabilities.'

5. Pass a resolution to the Province of Ontario requesting that Bill 23 and related policies be reviewed for human-rights compliance and amended to protect accessible parking requirements.

6. Communicate findings publicly to ensure transparency and accountability.