junctionist
Senior Member
That's why they banned eating on the trains.
The TTC has tried to ban food as well, but since some people's medical conditions require them to have food (diabetics in particular) they don't do it. Any food ban would get struck down under anti-discrimination laws.
As to it being a human rights issue for diabetics - I can't wait to hear how the violators justify eating a bag of chips, cookies, a full course meal - bones and all - and throwing it all on the ground has anything to do with the disease (and how Toronto apparently is the only place with diabetes).
News flash... Ontario's laws don't apply in Washington DC. Anyways, the TTC can ban food, they just can't enforce that ban for anyone who says that they have some medical condition that might require eating food.
Doctor's note. A medical condition isn't self-identified.
AoD
The Human Rights Code includes stipulations regarding the reasonability of the process of providing accommodations. I doubt a judge would agree with the TTC that a diabetic should be expected to carry several doctor's notes everywhere at all times so that they can give a copy to anyone who asks--and I doubt the TTC would train their frontline staff, i.e. operators/guards/collectors, to evaluate medical documents and make decisions about Human Rights Code accommodations on the spot, they'd probably need a supervisor to come in and check it, which would be an unreasonably long wait for a potentially life-threatening condition. Additionally, the Human Rights Commission/Tribunal have recently started taking a hard stance towards requests to see medical proof of disabilities due to privacy reasons, in many cases it has been found that requiring a medical note can be discriminatory and unreasonable, and--again, in some cases--people should simply be taken at their word where the request for accommodation is not unreasonable, which I'm sure would apply to eating on the subway.
For comparison, I've heard from a few people who work in retail stores with 'no pets' policies--whenever someone comes in with a pet, they have been explicitly ordered by management to say nothing and do nothing or they'll be fired on the spot, because the management is concerned about getting sued for discrimination if it is a guide dog--even the question "is that a guide dog?" can, apparently, cause issues--or, at least, there is enough concern that it can that people avoid even that much.
In the end, I'm certain that the TTC is smart enough not to want to get into trouble with it, and just don't have the rule at all.
The same TTC that ignored the human rights issue that is station announcement for decades?
I can't wait to see some killjoy bring it to OHRC.
While TTC has crises (especially pre-Andy Byford), it is currently far worse in Washington DC now -- It's really bad now and now a modern textbook case study of a subway falling apart.Any newly opened anything has teething problems. Bad parts, faulty switches, shorts, etc.. Eventually, they'll work. That's why the TTC is delaying the official switch away from tokens until most parts are actually working as specified.
Until the fiscal conservatives come on the scene that is and hold back the needed money for maintenance and refurbishment, as you mentioned with the Washington Metro (and the underfunded TTC as well).
The OHRC doesn't deal with accessibility. They deal with discrimination. One is ensuring that new services are designed to be accessible and old services are upgraded to become accessible, which AODA deals with. The other is intentionally creating policies that make your service inaccessible, which Human Rights laws deal with.
The TTC already did that!! That's why there's no food ban - the OHRC's predecessor struck it down as discriminatory, and the TTC decided that it wasn't worth banning food if anyone could just claim some medical reason for why they needed to eat.
While TTC has crises (especially pre-Andy Byford), it is currently far worse in Washington DC now -- It's really bad now and now a modern textbook case study of a subway falling apart.
But Robert Puentes, the incoming president of the Eno Center for Transportation, who wrote a 2004 paper on Metro, says the system’s problems also stem from a singular reality written into it from the outset: It is an “institutional orphan” with no single mayor or legislature in charge. Metro, he said, is the only mass transit system of its size without a permanent source of funding, like a tax on businesses near stations. It relies solely on allocations from its three jurisdictions and on its own fares for operations.
That's certainly a cautionary tale.But before we feel too good about it, keep in mind, quoted from the NYT article:
I was wrong. Today a new sign was up. The work would be completed in “mid-February”. What a joke…