The amendment broadens the Buildings Accessibility Act’s reach and clarifies key terms. It redefines “apartment‑type building” and “persons with disabilities,” narrows the private‑home exemption where a business operates, removes the long-standing exemption for buildings that existed on December 24, 1981, and makes those buildings subject to the Act when they are reconstructed, added to, or change use.
Practically, the bill requires new construction to comply with the Act and regulations, limits the compliance obligation on reconstructed or added portions, creates a formal process for the director to authorize deviations that deliver equivalent accessibility, and tightens enforcement with set fines, daily penalties for non‑compliance, and a two‑year limitation on laying complaints.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill amends definitions, removes the pre‑1981 blanket exemption, and makes compliance mandatory for new buildings and for portions of buildings that are reconstructed or added to. It empowers the director to grant written deviations where strict compliance is impractical but equivalent accessibility is achieved, and updates enforcement, appeals, and penalties.
Who It Affects
Owners and operators of apartment buildings (defined as buildings with more than four residential units sharing a primary entrance and interior corridor), landlords, developers, inspectors, tribunal members, and persons with mobility, visual or hearing impairments. Small multi‑unit properties under the apartment threshold and private homes without a qualifying business remain generally excluded.
Why It Matters
By removing grandfathering for pre‑1981 buildings and specifying when and how older buildings must comply, the amendment pushes accessibility obligations onto a broader set of properties while preserving limited practical exemptions for unchanged private homes. The director’s deviation power and defined penalties change how compliance will be administered and enforced in practice.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendments recast who and what the Act covers. “Apartment‑type building” is now an explicit, unit‑count and layout test: residential buildings with more than four units that share a primary entrance and an interior common access corridor. That produces a clear line between small multi‑unit dwellings and buildings treated as larger apartment properties under the Act.
The definition of “persons with disabilities” is narrowed in statute to three impairment categories: mobility (including reaching and manipulation), visual, and hearing impairments; the bill also removes two previously listed, now‑redundant definitions.
The private‑home exemption is narrowed. A private dwelling remains exempt except for a portion that contains a business open to the public, is physically subdivided by firewalls from the rest of the home, and lacks an internal entry between business and residence.
Boarding houses, lodging houses or B&Bs that offer sleeping accommodations to more than ten guests fall back inside the Act. Critically, the long‑standing exemption for buildings that existed on December 24, 1981 is repealed: those buildings are now subject to the Act and regulations, but owners may continue to occupy or own non‑complying buildings until the building is reconstructed, added to, or undergoes a change in use.When reconstruction or additions occur, obligation is limited to the reconstructed or added portions rather than forcing a full retrofit.
To manage practical impediments, the director can—on written application—authorize deviations from regulatory provisions where strict compliance would be impractical and the proposed alternative yields at least equivalent accessibility. Administrative and adjudicative mechanics are adjusted: inspector duties are clarified, tribunal membership continuity rules are tweaked, references to the provincial court structure are corrected to “Supreme Court,” and gender‑neutral language replaces older pronouns.Enforcement becomes more specific.
The amendment prescribes minimum and maximum fines for natural persons ($1,000–$10,000) and corporations ($2,000–$50,000), adds daily continuing fines ($400–$4,000 per day) for failure to remedy within the ordered period, and requires that prosecutions be brought within two years after the director is notified of the alleged offence. Those changes create clearer financial exposure for non‑compliance and a defined limitations window for enforcement actions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “apartment‑type building” as any residential building with more than four units that share a common primary entrance and an interior common access corridor.
The statutory definition of “persons with disabilities” is limited to mobility (including reaching/manipulation), visual, and hearing impairments; two prior definitions are repealed as redundant.
The December 24, 1981 exemption is repealed: existing buildings from that date are subject to the Act, but owners may continue to occupy non‑complying buildings until they are reconstructed, added to, or change use; only reconstructed or added portions must meet the Act.
The director may authorize, by written application, deviations from regulatory provisions where exceptional circumstances make strict compliance impractical and the deviation provides accessibility at least equivalent to the regulation.
Offences now carry set fines: individuals $1,000–$10,000; corporations $2,000–$50,000; plus daily continuing fines of $400–$4,000 for each day past an ordered correction period; prosecutions must be commenced within two years of the director being informed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions — apartment type and persons with disabilities
This section replaces the apartment‑type and persons‑with‑disabilities definitions. The apartment threshold (>4 units) and interior common corridor requirement give administrators and courts a bright‑line test for which multi‑unit buildings qualify. Narrowing the disability definition to three impairment types removes earlier, unspecified categories — a drafting choice that will shape who can assert rights under the Act unless regulations or guidance expand the statutory list.
Private‑home and small lodging exclusions tightened
The private‑home exemption now excludes any portion that houses a public business and is physically separated by fire‑walls with no internal access; B&Bs/boarding houses with more than 10 guests are brought inside the Act. Practically, a homeowner operating a public business in a sealed‑off portion will face compliance obligations for that portion, which may trigger building alterations or access upgrades.
Construction and reconstruction obligations — limited scope on additions
The prohibition on building without compliance is restated: new construction must meet the Act and regulations. For reconstruction or additions, the duty to comply is confined to the portions being worked on, not the entire structure. That reduces immediate retrofit exposure but may encourage phased renovations that delay full‑building accessibility upgrades.
Director’s power to authorize deviations
A new administrative route allows the director to approve departures from regulatory requirements upon written application when exceptional circumstances make strict compliance impractical and an alternative delivers equal or better accessibility. The provision creates a formal equivalency standard and a documented process, but it vests discretion in the director without statutory appeal criteria beyond existing tribunal and court processes.
Enforcement, tribunal, appeals and limitation changes
Inspector duties are clarified to require reasonable examination that requirements are met. Fines and remedial orders are quantified: individuals and corporations face defined minimums and maximums plus daily continuing fines for failure to comply within an ordered period. Appeals are routed to the tribunal and then to the Supreme Court (replacement of “Trial Division”), and the time to lay information or complaint is limited to two years from when the director learns of the alleged offence. These changes tighten enforcement mechanics and litigation channels.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Persons with mobility, visual or hearing impairments — the Act’s reach extends to more multi‑unit and formerly exempt buildings, improving prospects for accessible entry, circulation and services in affected properties.
- Tenants and patrons using businesses located in parts of private homes that meet the three listed conditions — those spaces lose the private‑home shield and must meet accessibility requirements.
- Accessibility professionals and contractors — clarified definitions and the director’s deviation process will generate demand for assessments, retrofit work, and equivalency design solutions.
- Advocacy groups pursuing systemic accessibility improvements — removal of the 1981 grandfathering creates a statutory basis to press for upgrades tied to renovations or changes of use.
Who Bears the Cost
- Owners and landlords of multi‑unit buildings (more than four units) and of buildings that date from before December 24, 1981 — they now face new retrofit obligations when they reconstruct, add to, or change use, and potential fines if they do not comply.
- Small‑scale property owners operating businesses out of parts of private homes that meet the statutory triage — these proprietors may need to upgrade access for the business portion, possibly at short notice.
- Developers and renovation contractors — compliance for additions and reconstructed portions will impose design, permitting and construction costs, and could complicate phased renovation planning.
- Administration (director’s office and tribunal) — the deviation application process, inspection duties, adjudications and appeals will increase workload and require policy guidance to ensure consistent exercise of discretion.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between accelerating accessibility across the building stock and limiting burdens on property owners: the amendment removes long‑standing grandfathering to extend coverage, but it confines mandatory upgrades to only those parts of buildings that are reconstructed or added, and permits administrative deviations when strict compliance is impractical — a trio of measures that advances access while preserving pragmatic exceptions, leaving policy‑makers and courts to balance rights to accessibility against the practical and financial limits of retrofitting.
Two unresolved structural choices stand out. First, the statutory narrowing of “persons with disabilities” to mobility, visual and hearing impairments removes other categories that advocates often rely on (for example, cognitive, neurodevelopmental, psychiatric or sensory processing disabilities).
The amendment does not explain whether regulations, standards or guidance will expand the operational scope of accessibility obligations to cover additional needs, leaving a substantive gap that could generate litigation or policy pressure.
Second, the combination of removing the pre‑1981 exemption while limiting compliance to reconstructed or added portions creates a mixed incentive. Owners face new obligations only upon work that triggers compliance, which reduces immediate retrofitting costs but can perpetuate inaccessible buildings in practice.
The director’s discretion to authorize deviations by written application introduces necessary flexibility for hard cases, but it also concentrates significant interpretive power in a single administrative office; without published criteria or appeal‑stage standards for equivalency, outcomes risk inconsistency across cases. Finally, the revised fines and the two‑year limitation period tighten enforcement but could strain resources: investigators and the director must identify and act within the new window, and the daily‑fine regime could produce steep penalties that courts may be asked to moderate on proportionality grounds.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.