Address Your Duty to Accommodate with a Single Grant

What is Described Video or Audio Description?

Described video is an accessibility service that acts like a friendly narrator, ensuring you don't miss any crucial details during council meetings or legislative sessions. Imagine trying to follow a busy meeting when you have a visual impairment, recovering from eye surgery, missing your glasses, or even dealing with a concussion. Described video provides real-time audio cues that tell you exactly what's happening. It clearly announces who is speaking, highlights when the Speaker of the House goes silent for sidebar conversations, and fills in the gaps when politicians interrupt one another, so you're always in the loop. This service transforms what you might otherwise miss into a comprehensive, accessible experience, allowing you to fully understand and participate in important discussions.

Described Video: It's The Law

Described video is mandated by multiple legal frameworks. Below is an overview of key judicial decisions, statutory obligations and evolving provincial mandates that underscore its importance for accessible communication in public services.

Supreme Court Rulings

The Supreme Court has set important precedents that affirm the obligation of governments to accommodate communication needs. In Eldridge v. British Columbia (opens in a new tab) (1997), the Court ruled that failing to provide sign language interpreters in public healthcare amounted to discrimination under the Charter. Such decisions underscore that effective communication is essential to ensuring equal participation in government services, a principle that extends to the broadcasting of legislative proceedings and municipal meetings.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Although not a statute, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all levels of government and mandates equality before the law. Section 15 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, and courts have used this provision to require proactive measures (such as audio description, captioning or sign language interpretation) to ensure accessible communications.

Federal Case Law

Federal case law reinforces the Charter's mandates by establishing benchmarks for accessible communication. In Canada (Attorney General) v. Jodhan (opens in a new tab) (2012 FCA 161), the Federal Court of Appeal determined that inaccessible federal websites violated the right to equal access, leading to significant commentary on web accessibility standards.

Bill C-19

Bill C-19 has broadened federal commitments to accessibility by directing the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to review and establish digital accessibility guidelines. This initiative ensures that online streams of public meetings, including legislative proceedings and municipal council sessions, incorporate features such as live captioning and audio descriptions, thereby extending accessibility obligations to digital platforms.

The CRTC, Described Video, and Audio Description

On December 17, 2025, the CRTC introduced new rules to better support Canadians who rely on described video and audio description (opens in a new tab). By December 17, 2027, online streaming and on-demand TV services will be required to include described video on all new original scripted programs, such as dramas and comedies, and provide audio description for all news and information programming. They will also need to offer a search tool to help people find accessible content. Alongside this, broadcasters must also provide audio description for all in-house productions related to information-based programs. Taken together, these obligations extend a consistent accessibility standard across television, streaming, and the council and legislative broadcasts LegislatureDV is built to serve.

Accessible Canada Act

In force since 2019, the Accessible Canada Act provides a proactive framework for a barrier-free Canada by 2040. The Act requires federal entities to develop Accessibility Plans, remove barriers in communications and ensure that new videos of government meetings include closed captioning and audio description, making both live and archived content accessible.

Provincial Acts

Provincial and territorial legislation further reinforces accessibility obligations. In Ontario, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and the Human Rights Code mandate that public sector websites and video content meet WCAG standards, with requirements for closed captioning and described video. British Columbia's Accessible BC Act and Human Rights Code require public bodies to develop accessibility plans and report on barriers, while Alberta relies on the Alberta Human Rights Act and related policies, with many municipalities voluntarily implementing accessible communication measures. Manitoba's Accessibility for Manitobans Act and Information & Communication Standard obligate online content to adhere to WCAG Level AA standards. Saskatchewan's Accessible Saskatchewan Act, in conjunction with the Human Rights Code, signals forthcoming requirements for captioned and described digital communications. Nova Scotia's Accessibility Act and Human Rights Act commit the province to full accessibility by 2030, with measures such as CART captioning and interpreter services already in use. Newfoundland and Labrador's Accessibility Act and Human Rights Act require public bodies to develop accessibility plans even as technical standards evolve, and New Brunswick has introduced a new Accessibility Act alongside its Human Rights Act to achieve barrier-free access by 2040. Prince Edward Island, though primarily guided by its Human Rights Act, is gradually moving towards comprehensive accessibility practices. In Quebec, the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Act to secure the exercise of the rights of handicapped persons obligate public bodies to identify and remove barriers, with expectations that measures such as captioning, sign language interpretation and audio description will become standard.

Regulatory Implications for Web Streaming Accessibility

How far must regulators go to ensure that their websites are accessible to people with disabilities? A recent case indicates that internet access to government information and services is so fundamental to its mandate that providing non-internet alternatives is insufficient. As regulators make their websites an integral part of their regulatory activities, the question becomes whether the same expectations will apply to them.

In Canada (Attorney General) v. Jodhan (opens in a new tab), 2012 FCA 161 (CanLII), a legally blind, sophisticated computer user was unable to access certain federal government websites. This resulted from various causes including the use of pop-up windows and PDF documents which did not lend themselves to accessibility software. Ms. Jodhan brought an application for judicial review arguing that her right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached.

The Court accepted the argument that equal benefit meant effective access to government services and not, necessarily, access by the person's preferred channel of delivery. However, the Court found:

I have great difficulty understanding how the benefit of access to government information and services can be truly enjoyed or exercised, in the present day, without access to that information by way of the Internet. In other words, depriving a person of access to government information and services by the use of one of the most important, if not the most important, tool ever designed for accessing not only government information and services, but all types of information and services, cannot constitute, in my respectful opinion, the provision of effective access to that information and those services.

The Court went on to say:

I am therefore of the view that the benefit of the law is access to government information and services. However, access thereto necessarily includes the benefit of online access, which is not just an ancillary component of the multi-channel delivery mechanism, but an integral part thereof. In other words, one cannot speak of access to government information and services without including access thereto by way of the Internet.

The Court did accept that if there were significant challenges to the government accommodating the disability, the Court might not order it. However, that was not the case here: in the present matter, no evidence has been offered by the Attorney General to the effect that there is any impediment to moving forward and enabling the visually impaired to readily access government information and services online. Consequently, I also have difficulty with the proposition that alternative formats and channels meet the goal of substantive equal treatment. Where not possible for technological, cost, or other reasons, I readily accept that the visually impaired would have to access government information and services through alternative formats or channels.

This case reinforces the duties imposed by the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), which has recently begun to apply to Ontario regulators. For example, many larger regulatory bodies will have to begin complying with certain web accessibility standards by January 1, 2014. The Ontario web accessibility standards are found in section 14 of O. Reg. 191/11 (the “Integrated Accessibility Standards”) under the AODA (opens in a new tab).