Canada (Attorney General) v. Jodhan

Canada (Attorney General) v. Jodhan
Court (s) Database
Federal Court of Appeal Decisions
Date
2012-05-30
Neutral citation
2012 FCA 161
File numbers
A-478-10
Notes
Reported Decision
Decision Content
Date: 20120530
Docket: A-478-10
Citation: 2012 FCA 161
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
DONNA JODHAN
Respondent
and
ALLIANCE FOR EQUALITY OF BLIND CANADIANS
Intervener
Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on November 15, 2011.
Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on May 30, 2012.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: NADON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY: SHARLOW J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
Date: 20120530
Docket: A-478-10
Citation: 2012 FCA 161
CORAM: NADON J.A.
SHARLOW J.A.
DAWSON J.A.
BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Appellant
and
DONNA JODHAN
Respondent
and
ALLIANCE FOR EQUALITY OF BLIND CANADIANS
Intervener
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NADON J.A.
[1] The Attorney General of Canada (the “appellant” or the “Attorney General”), appeals the Judgment of Kelen J. (the “judge”) of the Federal Court, 2010 FC 1197 (rendered on November 29, 2010 and amended on February 9, 2011), which allowed Ms. Jodhan’s (the “respondent” or “Ms. Jodhan”) application for a declaration under section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7 (“Federal Courts Act”), that she had been denied equal access to and benefit from government information and services provided online to the public on the Internet and that this denial constituted discrimination against her on the basis of her physical disability, i.e. blindness, and thus, a violation of her rights under subsection 15(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, being Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B, Canada Act 1982, 1982, c. 11 (U.K.), R.S.C., 1985, Appendix II, No. 44 (the “Charter”).
[2] The judge also declared that Ms. Jodhan’s inability to access certain departmental websites was representative of a system-wide failure by many of the 106 government departments and agencies of the Government of Canada to make their websites accessible to the visually impaired. In the judge’s view, the government’s failure to monitor and ensure compliance with its 2001 Accessibility Standards was an infringement of section 15 of the Charter since it discriminated against Ms. Jodhan and other visually impaired persons.
[3] The judge further declared that the government was constitutionally obliged to bring itself into compliance with the Charter within a period of 15 months.
[4] Finally, the judge retained jurisdiction over the implementation of his declarations, adding that he would resume proceedings, upon the application of either the Attorney General or Ms. Jodhan, if necessary, to ensure that the declarations were properly implemented.
[5] Although the appeal raises a number of issues, the main one is whether Ms. Jodhan was denied equal benefit of the law contrary to subsection 15(1) of the Charter.
The Facts and Context
[6] Ms. Jodhan is legally blind. She runs a consulting business that analyzes the accessibility of products and services for persons with special needs and is a “sophisticated computer user”.
[7] She commenced judicial review proceedings in the Federal Court on June 28, 2007, against the Attorney General as representative of the Treasury Board of Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat (jointly referred to hereinafter as “Treasury Board”), the Public Service Commission of Canada and Statistics Canada. In her application, Ms. Jodhan asked for the following declarations:
The applicant makes application for:
1. A declaration that the failure of the Treasury Board and the Treasury Board Secretariat to develop, maintain, and enforce standards which ensure that all Government of Canada websites and online services are accessible for all individuals with visual impairments.
(i) infringes the applicant’s right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on physical disability, and therefore violates section 15 of the Charter, and
(ii) that such violation is not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
2. A declaration that Statistics Canada’s failure to ensure that the 2006 online Census was accessible to those with visual impairments:
(iii) infringes the applicant’s right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on physical disability, and therefore violates section 15 of the Charter, and
(iv) that such violation is not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
3. A declaration that the Public Service Commission of Canada’s failure to ensure that its website and online application services are accessible to those with visual impairments:
(v) infringes the applicant’s right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination based on physical disability, and therefore violates section 15 of the Charter, and
(vi) that such violation is not justified under section 1 of the Charter.
[8] Ms. Jodhan alleged unequal protection and benefit of the law in two ways. First, the online accessibility standards were inadequate because they failed to deal with “rich Internet applications”, i.e. dynamic, interactive websites, through which the government provides interactive services online, which constitute some of the main benefits of online access. Second, the accessibility standards had not been adequately implemented by the departments subject to Treasury Board supervision.
[9] In support of her claim that on numerous occasions she encountered difficulty accessing government websites and that her experience was shared by other visually impaired persons in Canada, Ms. Jodhan gave five examples of inaccessibility.
[10] First, in September 2004, Ms. Jodhan experienced difficulty applying for employment at www.jobs.gc.ca and had to complete the application with assistance by phone. This was followed by failure to access information on the site between March and June 2007.
[11] Second, she was unable to create an online profile at www.jobs.gc.ca because pop-up windows, which blind users cannot navigate, kept popping up. She had to complete her online profile on the website with sighted assistance.
[12] Third, she alleged significant accessibility issues when trying to access information on Statistics Canada and Service Canada websites between March and June 2007 since the information was only available in “pdf” format, which is not accessible to screen reader technology.
[13] Fourth, the 2006 online Census return was only available to the visually impaired by software such as the JAWS program, which made it inaccessible to Ms. Jodhan and other visually impaired users who did not have access to such expensive software. Ms. Jodhan alleged that the form of the Census did not meet the World Wide Web Consortium (“W3C”) standards for accessibility.
[14] Fifth, Ms. Jodhan experienced difficulty accessing www.servicecanada.gc.ca in June 2007 to obtain information on the Canada Pension Plan and employment programs.
A. History of the Web and Content Accessibility Guidelines
[15] The World Wide Web (the “WWW”) was created in 1989. For approximately ten years, there existed no WWW accessibility guidelines for persons with disabilities. In 1994, the W3C was created in order to develop a consensus on industry standards to ensure that the WWW remained open and accessible to all. In 1997, the W3C launched the Web Accessibility Initiative (the “WAI”) to promote web accessibility for people with disabilities.
[16] The WAI, through a process of consultation with its then 170 member organizations and experts from around the world, began to develop a first set of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (the “WCAG 1.0”). The WCAG 1.0 provides detailed instructions to web content developers and authoring tools developers with respect to means to make Internet content accessible to people with disabilities, including the visually impaired. The version 1.0 of the WCAG was developed over a period of two years and, by May of 1999, final “W3C Recommendation” status was reached and published. These instructions are created in the form of guidelines which provide the basic goals that authors should work towards in order to make web content more accessible to all users. Each of the fourteen guidelines focuses on a core theme of accessibility and each guideline is divided in “checkpoint” definitions which explain how the guideline applies in typical content development scenarios. Each checkpoint has a priority level assigned by the Working Group based on the checkpoint's impact on accessibility.
[17] Shortly after the publication of the WCAG 1.0, work on the WCAG 2.0 began and, over the next seven years, extensive work was undertaken, with the WAI having grown by then to include over 400 member organizations which included the Government of Canada.
[18] The Government of Canada was actively involved with the WCAG Working Group to ensure that WCAG 2.0 would be compatible with its own standards. On December 11, 2008, the WCAG 2.0 reached “W3C Recommendation” status. WCAG 2.0 builds on WCAG 1.0 and is designed to apply broadly to different web technologies now and in the future, and to be testable with a combination of automated testing and human evaluation.
B. The Communications Policy and Online Activity
[19] In 1999, the government introduced a new project called “Government On-Line”, intended to provide electronic services to Canadians as part of a broader strategy aimed at stimulating the provision of better, faster, trusted and more convenient and accessible government services through four delivery channels: in person, by telephone, by mail and over the Internet. Government On-Line was meant to be client-centred, allowing Canadians to acquire information and services on their terms, and according to their needs.
[20] There are approximately 106 departments and agencies (“departments”) of the Government of Canada which provide services and programs to Canadians. Since the late 1990s, the departments have increased their presence on the Internet in order to provide more and more information and services to Canadians.
[21] As part of the government’s online initiative, the departments provide two types of services online, i.e. informational and interactive. Informational services include guides on starting a new business, travel advisories and information on various matters, such as epidemics. As to interactive services, they include applications for social services (for example, Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan benefits), online passport applications, and a single website from which Canadians can access online applications to all federal government job postings. Interactive services allow Canadians to interact with the government and are made possible through the use of dynamic, interactive websites, also called rich Internet applications.
[22] The security of the information provided by those who use the departments’ interactive services is protected through a group of services referred to as the “Secure Channel”. One of these services is “ePass”, which serves to protect the confidentiality of information provided by users to the departments. In 2008, 23 departments used the ePass technology to deliver 83 programs, including online applications for government jobs, passports and social benefits.
[23] The government’s decision, inter alia, to make its services available online has allowed Canadians to access government information and services at a time and place of their choosing.
[24] Pursuant to section 7 of the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C., 198, c. F-11, the Treasury Board developed the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada (the “Communications Policy”) dated April 1, 2002.
[25] The Communications Policy governs all communications made by the federal public administration, including online communications. In the Communications Policy, the government recognized that information must be made available in multiple formats to ensure equal access and that communications by the federal government had to comply with a number of statutes and policies, for example, the Charter, the Official Languages Act, R.S.C., 1985 (4th Supp.), c. 31, and the Privacy Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. P-21.
[26] The Communications Policy emphasizes the need for providing information to Canadians through a variety of channels, such the telephone, mail, print, broadcast media and the Internet.
[27] As part of the government’s initiative, the Communications Policy makes the departments subject to the Common Look and Feel Standards for the Internet, Part 2: Standard on the Accessibility, Interoperability and Usability of Web Sites (the “CLF 1.0 Standard”), which was issued by Treasury Board in May 2000 with a required implementation date of 2001. The CLF 1.0 Standard was made mandatory for all government departments and agencies and was created to enable access by all Canadians to information on government websites. The CLF 1.0 Standard provides an effective means for the public and the government to exchange information and for the government to offer its services in the official language and at the time and place of Canadians' choosing. The CLF 1.0 Standard requires that the websites of all government institutions listed in Schedules I, I.1 and II of the Financial Administration Act be in compliance with the WCAG 1.0 Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints.
[28] In September 2005, the CLF 1.0 Standard was updated to version 1.1 to bring the standards in line with current best practices. Further, in December 2006, the CLF 1.0 Standard was replaced by the CLF 2.0 Standard (“CLF 2.0 Standard”) to, inter alia, build on what had been learned from implementing the CLF 1.0 Standard across the various departmental websites. The CLF 2.0 Standard came into effect on January 1, 2007 with an implementation deadline of December 31, 2008. There is no dispute between the parties that there is little difference between the CLF 1.0 Standard and the CLF 2.0 Standard.
[29] The CFL Standard is built upon international guidelines, i.e. the WCAG 1.0. To facilitate equal access to online services and information, Treasury Board incorporated elements of the WCAG 1.0 into the CLF Standard. The WCAG 1.0 measures web accessibility according to three categories of checkpoints.
[30] Priority 1 checkpoints are basic, necessary requirements because if not met, “one or more groups of persons with disabilities will not be able to access content on the Web”. Without Priority 2 checkpoints “one of more groups will find it difficult to access content on the Web”. Priority 3 checkpoint may “prevent some groups from finding it ‘somewhat difficult’ to access website content.” The Attorney General notes that “[i]t is common ground between the parties that a checkpoint failure does not necessarily make a web site inaccessible”. Under the CLF Standard, all gc.ca websites must meet Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints. Departments may apply to Treasury Board for exemption, if need be.
C. Treasury Board and the CLF Standard
[31] Pursuant to section 7(1)(a) of the Financial Administration Act, Treasury Board may act for the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada on all matters relating to general administrative policy in the federal public administration. On that basis, the Treasury Board developed the government’s Communications Policy which, as I have already indicated, aims to ensure that government communications are well coordinated, effectively managed and responsive to the diverse information needs of the public.
[32] In 2000, the Treasury Board therefore created a Common Look and Feel Office (the “CLF Office”). The CLF Office works with the departments to develop their understanding and capability to implement the CLF Standard by, inter alia, creating consultation forums such as “Centers of Expertise”, i.e. groups of experts identified by the CLF Office to provide support to Website developers within the respective departments in implementing the CLF Standard. As no monitoring of departmental websites is effected by the CLF Office to ensure compliance with the CLF Standard, deputy heads of departments are accountable for implementing the CLF Standard within their institutions.
[33] However, pursuant to the CLF Standard, the Treasury Board is to monitor compliance with all aspects of the standard in a variety of ways which include, inter alia, assessments under the Management Accountability Framework, departmental performance reports and results of audits, evaluations and studies. Consequences of non-compliance can include informal follow-ups and requests from the Treasury Board, external audits and formal directions.
D. Access to the Internet by the Visually Impaired
[34] The visually impaired access Internet content with assistive technology, such as a screen reader and/or self-voicing browser software. A “screen reader” is a software application that identifies and interprets electronic text that is displayed on a computer screen, and then converts the information to an audible form or into Braille for the user to “read” tactilely. A “self-voicing” browser software is essentially a web browser with a screen reader built in. Screen readers have long been in use as software programs that allow the visually impaired to access online information.
[35] Using one or the other device, a visually impaired person uses keystrokes entered on a standard keyboard in lieu of mouse clicking to operate the screen reader and other software, such as a web browser displaying a web page.
[36] For the above to work, the web content must be designed in a compatible and accessible manner, i.e. designed so that assistive technologies can navigate and interpret the information encoded in the website. Thus, if the website is properly programmed, a visually impaired person can access its content as easily and efficiently as a sighted person. However, if accessibility is not built into a website the information may well be totally inaccessible to a visually impaired person.
[37] It is in the context whereby Canadians are choosing the time and place in which to access government information and services that the visually impaired assert the right to deal with the government over the Internet. Ms. Jodhan says that the possibility of accessing government information online “is more than just a matter of efficiency and reliability; it represents independence and privacy.” (Respondent’s Memorandum of Fact and Law, p. 7. para. 22).
[38] Ms. Jodhan further argues that because of the Internet, the visually impaired are able to access the same information and services that sighted persons have access to and that it allows them to interact independently and directly with the government, banks and employers.
[39] The technique and tools necessary to render websites accessible include authoring tools, which help Website developers to build in accessibility when creating a website by making access the default position, and automatic monitoring tools, which help to monitor websites by reason of the difficulty of manually checking websites to ensure their accessibility. Those tools have been in existence for quite a while.
[40] Because using authoring tools means that access is the default position, programmers have to remove access rather than build it in.
[41] The evidence is to the effect that the government does not use, in a consistent way, either authoring tools or automatic monitoring tools.
Relevant Legislation
A. The Federal Courts Act
[42] Subsection 18(1) sets out the Court’s jurisdiction with regard to federal administrative tribunals:
18. (1) Subject to section 28, the Federal Court has exclusive original jurisdiction
(a) to issue an injunction, writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or writ of quo warranto, or grant declaratory relief, against any federal board, commission or other tribunal; and
(b) to hear and determine any application or other proceeding for relief in the nature of relief contemplated by paragraph (a), including any proceeding brought against the Attorney General of Canada, to obtain relief against a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
18. (1) Sous réserve de l’article 28, la Cour fédérale a compétence exclusive, en première instance, pour :
a) décerner une injonction, un bref de certiorari, de mandamus, de prohibition ou de quo warranto, ou pour rendre un jugement déclaratoire contre tout office fédéral;
b) connaître de toute demande de réparation de la nature visée par l’alinéa a), et notamment de toute procédure engagée contre le procureur général du Canada afin d’obtenir réparation de la part d’un office fédéral.
[43] A person must be “directly affected” by a decision to apply for judicial review.
18.1(1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought.
18.1(1) Une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur général du Canada ou par quiconque est directement touché par l’objet de la demande.
[44] The Federal Court has authority to provide the following remedies.
18.1(3) On an application for judicial review, the Federal Court may
(a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or
(b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal.
18.1(3) Sur présentation d’une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Cour fédérale peut :
a) ordonner à l’office fédéral en cause d’accomplir tout acte qu’il a illégalement omis ou refusé d’accomplir ou dont il a retardé l’exécution de manière déraisonnable;
b) déclarer nul ou illégal, ou annuler, ou infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement conformément aux instructions qu’elle estime appropriées, ou prohiber ou encore restreindre toute décision, ordonnance, procédure ou tout autre acte de l’office fédéral.
B. The Charter
15(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
15(1) La loi ne fait acception de personne et s'applique également à tous, et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondées sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l'âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques.
1 The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1 La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés garantit les droits et libertés qui y sont énoncés. Ils ne peuvent être restreints que par une règle de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d'une société libre et démocratique.
24(1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
24(1) Toute personne, victime de violation ou de négation des droits ou libertés qui lui sont garantis par la présente charte, peut s’adresser à un tribunal compétent pour obtenir la réparation que le tribunal estime convenable et juste eu égard aux circonstances.
C. The Financial Administration Act
[45] Section 7 of the Financial Administration Act sets out the responsibilities of the Treasury Board of Canada:
7(1) The Treasury Board may act for the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada on all matters relating to
(a) general administrative policy in the federal public administration;
(b) the organization of the federal public administration or any portion thereof, and the determination and control of establishments therein;
(c) financial management, including estimates, expenditures, financial commitments, accounts, fees or charges for the provision of services or the use of facilities, rentals, licences, leases, revenues from the disposition of property, and procedures by which departments manage, record and account for revenues received or receivable from any source whatever;
(d) the review of annual and longer term expenditure plans and programs of departments, and the determination of priorities with respect thereto;
…
(f) such other matters as may be referred to it by the Governor in Council.
…
7(1) Le Conseil du Trésor peut agir au nom du Conseil privé de la Reine pour le Canada à l’égard des questions suivantes :
a) les grandes orientations applicables à l’administration publique fédérale;
b) l’organisation de l’administration publique fédérale ou de tel de ses secteurs ainsi que la détermination et le contrôle des établissements qui en font partie;
c) la gestion financière, notamment les prévisions budgétaires, les dépenses, les engagements financiers, les comptes, le prix de fourniture de services ou d’usage d’installations, les locations, les permis ou licences, les baux, le produit de la cession de biens, ainsi que les méthodes employées par les ministères pour gérer, inscrire et comptabiliser leurs recettes ou leurs créances;
d) l’examen des plans et programmes des dépenses annuels ou à plus long terme des ministères et la fixation de leur ordre de priorité;
…
f) les autres questions que le gouverneur en conseil peut lui renvoyer.
…
D. The Communications Policy of the Government of Canada
[46] It is the Government of Canada’s Policy Statement to:
Policy Statement
…
(1) Provide the public with timely, accurate, clear, objective and complete information about its policies, programs, services and initiatives. In the Canadian system of parliamentary democracy and responsible government, the government has a duty to explain its policies and decisions, and to inform the public of its priorities for the country. Information is necessary for Canadians – individually or through representative groups or Members of Parliament – to participate actively and meaningfully in the democratic process. It is required for access to government programs and services. The public has a right to such information.
…
(4) Employ a variety of ways and means to communicate, and provide information in multiple formats to accommodate diverse needs. Government information must be broadly accessible throughout society. The needs of all Canadians, whose perceptual or physical abilities and language skills are diverse, must be recognized and accommodated. Information must be accessible so citizens, as responsible members of a democratic community, may be aware of, understand, respond to and influence its development and implementation of policies, programs, services and initiatives. Information must be available in multiple formats to ensure equal access. All means of communication – from traditional methods to new technologies – must be used to reach and communicate with Canadians wherever they may reside. Modern government requires the capacity to respond effectively over multiple channels in a 24-hour, global communications network.
Énoncé de la politique
…
(1) De fournir au public des renseignements sur ses politiques, programmes, services et initiatives qui sont opportuns, exacts, clairs, objectifs et complets. Dans le système canadien de démocratie parlementaire et de gouvernement responsable, le gouvernement a l'obligation d'expliquer ses politiques et ses décisions et d'informer le public des priorités qu'il établit pour le pays. Les Canadiens ont besoin de renseignements pour leur permettre - à titre individuel ou par le truchement des groupes qui les représentent ou de leurs députés - de participer activement et utilement au processus démocratique. Ces renseignements sont nécessaires pour avoir accès aux programmes et services gouvernementaux, et le public y a droit.
…
(4) D'employer diverses façons et divers moyens de communiquer, et de fournir l'information sur de nombreux supports de manière à répondre à divers besoins. L'information gouvernementale doit être accessible à tous les secteurs de la société. Il faut prendre en compte les besoins de tous les Canadiens, dont les habiletés perceptives et physiques ainsi que les compétences linguistiques sont variées, et y répondre. Les renseignements doivent être accessibles pour que tous les citoyens, en tant que membres d'une collectivité démocratique, soient au courant de l'élaboration et de la mise en œuvre des politiques, programmes, services et initiatives, les comprennent, qu'ils y réagissent et qu'ils exercent une influence à cet égard. Les renseignements doivent être disponibles sur de nombreux supports pour assurer l'égalité d'accès. Il faut utiliser tous les moyens de communication, allant des méthodes conventionnelles aux nouvelles technologies, pour communiquer avec les Canadiens où qu'ils habitent. Un gouvernement moderne doit pouvoir réagir efficacement dans un milieu de communication globale actif 24 heures sur 24, en ayant recours à de nombreux moyens de diffusion.
[47] It is the Government of Canada’s Policy Requirement to:
Policy Requirements
1. Informing and Serving Canadians
…
To assure quality service that meets the information needs of all Canadians, institutions must ensure that:
a. the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, including all regulations and policies flowing from it, are respected at all times;
b. trained and knowledgeable staff provide information services to the public;
c. service is timely, courteous, fair, efficient and offered with all due regard for the privacy, safety, convenience, comfort and needs of the public;
d. a variety of new and traditional methods of communication are used to accommodate the needs of a diverse public;
e. published information is available on request in multiple formats to accommodate persons with disabilities;
…
Exigences de la politique
1. Information et services aux Canadiens
…
Pour fournir un service de qualité qui répond aux besoins de renseignements de tous les Canadiens, les institutions doivent faire en sorte :
a. que la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et la Loi sur les langues officielles, ainsi que tous les règlements et les politiques qui en découlent, soient respectés en tout temps;
b. que le public soit servi par un personnel bien informé et compétent;
c. que le service soit empressé, courtois, équitable et efficace, tout en tenant compte comme il se doit de la protection des renseignements personnels, de la sécurité, des convenances, du bien-être et des besoins du public;
d. que toute une gamme de méthodes nouvelles et conventionnelles de communication servent à satisfaire les besoins d'un public diversifié;
e. que l'information soit fournie sur demande sur divers supports afin de répondre aux besoins des personnes handicapées;
…
18. Internet and Electronic Communication
The Internet, World Wide Web and other means of electronic communication are powerful enablers for building and sustaining effective communication within institutions and with their clients across Canada and around the world.
An important tool for providing information and services to the public, the Internet facilitates interactive, two-way communication and feedback. It provides opportunities to reach and connect with Canadians wherever they reside, and to deliver personalized services.
Institutions must maintain an active presence on the Internet to enable 24-hour electronic access to public programs, services and information. E-mail and Web sites must be used to enable direct communications between Canadians and government institutions, and among public service managers and employees.
Institutions must advance Government of Canada on-line initiatives aimed at expanding the reach and quality of internal and external communications, improving service delivery, connecting and interacting with citizens, enhancing public access and fostering public dialogue.
Institutions must ensure that Internet communications conform to government policies and standards. Government of Canada themes and messages must be accurately reflected in electronic communications with the public and among employees.
…
Institutions must:
a. manage their Web sites and portals in accordance with the Treasury Board's Common Look and Feel for the Internet: Standards and Guidelines;
…
18. Internet et communications électroniques
Internet, le Web et d'autres moyens de communication électronique sont des outils importants pour permettre et maintenir une communication efficace au sein des institutions et avec leurs clients dans tout le Canada et dans le monde entier.
Important outil pour fournir de l'information et des services au public, Internet facilite la communication interactive et bidirectionnelle ainsi que la rétroaction. Il offre des possibilités de joindre les Canadiens peu importe où ils habitent et de leur fournir des services personnalisés.
Les institutions doivent maintenir une présence active sur Internet pour permettre l'accès par voie électronique, 24 heures sur 24, à l'information, aux programmes et aux services publics. Le courrier électronique et les sites Web doivent servir à assurer la communication directe entre les Canadiens et les institutions gouvernementales, et entre les gestionnaires et les employés de la fonction publique.
Les institutions doivent promouvoir les initiatives en ligne du gouvernement du Canada qui visent à élargir la portée et à améliorer la qualité des communications internes et externes, à améliorer la prestation de services, à se rapprocher des citoyens et à interagir avec eux, à élargir l'accès du public et à favoriser le dialogue avec ce dernier.
Les institutions doivent veiller à ce que les communications sur Internet soient conformes aux politiques et aux normes gouvernementales. Les communications électroniques avec le public et entre les employés doivent véhiculer fidèlement les thèmes et les messages du gouvernement du Canada.
…
Les institutions doivent:
a. gérer leurs portails et leurs sites Web conformément à la politique sur l'Uniformité de la présentation et de l'exploitation pour l'Internet : Normes et directives du Conseil du Trésor;
…
E. The Common Look and Feel for the Internet: Standards and Guidelines “CLF 1.0 Standard
Overview
…
In keeping with the client-centred approach of the CLF initiative, universal accessibility standards are directed toward ensuring equitable access to all content on GoC Web sites. While site design is an important element of the electronic media, universal accessibility guidelines have been developed to ensure anyone can obtain content, regardless of the technologies they use. The key to effective implementation of universal accessibility guidelines lies in designing sites to serve the widest possible audience and the broadest possible range of hardware and software platforms, from assistive devices to emerging technologies. W3C WAI working groups continually test WCA Guidelines against a full range of browsers and assistive devices before recommending widespread implementation.
…
Universal accessibility does not depend on minimal Web page design, it depends on thoughtful design. Along with WAI guidelines, the CLF standards provide direction for Web authors, particularly those using multimedia content, to ensure that all site content and functions are available to all users. Authors should not be discouraged from using multimedia, but rather should use it in a manner that ensures that the material they publish is functional for the widest possible audience. The GoC has adopted the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) to ensure the majority of Canadians will find it relatively easy to use on-line information and services.
Standard 1.1
All GoC Web sites must comply with W3C Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints to ensure sites can be easily accessed by the widest possible audience.
Rationale
This standard is the key requirement for accessible design in the GoC. It points to an existing international standard: the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 recommendation, from the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
The W3C checkpoints mentioned in the CLF standard are set out and defined in W3C’s recommendation. That documentation explains the rationale behind each of fourteen basic guidelines for making Web sites universally accessible. Following each guideline are one or more actions that a page author must perform to meet the requirements of the guidelines. These actions are called “Checkpoints”.
This CLF standard requires GoC Web sites to comply with Priority 1 and Priority 2 checkpoints.
(NOTE: No French version was provided to the Court)
The Federal Court Decision
[48] First, the judge carefully reviewed the considerable evidence adduced before him (Judge’s Reasons, paras. 25 to 75). Then, after setting out the relevant provisions of the Charter, he addressed three preliminary matters, i.e. the jurisdiction of the Court to hear Ms. Jodhan’s application, the Attorney General’s submission that the Court could not, in the circumstances of the case, provide a remedy to Ms. Jodhan’s system-wide complaint, and whether she was a public interest litigant. He first determined that the issue raised by Ms. Jodhan was a “matter” within the intendment of the Federal Courts Act. He then held, on the facts and pleadings before him, that Ms. Jodhan could bring a systemic complaint “which affects her and others in the same position” (Judge’s Reasons, para. 86). Lastly, it was his view that Ms. Jodhan was a “public interest litigant”, noting that the Attorney General “has accepted this characterization of the applicant” (Judge’s Reasons, para. 87).
[49] At paragraphs 88 and following of his Reasons, the judge then turned to an assessment of the evidence. He made a number of findings, of which the following are the most pertinent for the purposes of this appeal:
1. The Government of Canada made a commitment, originally in the 1999 Speech
from the Throne, to provide both information and services online to Canadians.
2. In order to give effect to its commitment, the government issued a Communications Policy, pursuant to section 7 of the Act, directing that communications by those departments and agencies subject to the Act be made in compliance with various statutes, including the Charter.
3. In 2000, the government issued the CLF 1.0 Standard, requiring that departments and agencies design and program their websites so as to make them accessible to the visually impaired by 2001.
4. A 2007 spot-audit of 47 departments by the CLF Office identified numerous failures by every department to meet the priority 1 and priority 2 checkpoints of the CLF 1.0 Standard.
5. Although none of the departments complied with the CLF 1.0 Standard, the CLF Office concluded that in the case of 22 departments, “serious violations” had occurred. As a result, the CLF Office directed letters to the deputy heads of these departments, requiring them to take steps to bring their departments into compliance.
6. The CLF Standard is inadequate because interactive applications are not accessible. Rich Internet applications, i.e. dynamic, interactive websites, use ePass as a security channel. These websites are used by 23 government departments to provide 83 online applications, such as for employment insurance or passports. For these websites to function, they must use particular technologies, such as “scripts” and “applets”, which, however, pose an acc