What Ontario’s 72 school boards told the province about their websites on their accessibility compliance reports, from 2015 to 2025, set beside what the 2026 review found in the accessibility documents they post.
Summary
Ontario school boards file accessibility compliance reports with the province, most recently for the 2021, 2023 and 2025 reporting years. Two of those forms, for 2021 and 2023, ask directly whether all of the board’s websites conform to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 at Level AA, the standard the Integrated Accessibility Standards set for websites and web content from 1 January 2021. This article gathers every answer to that website question that could be found for the 72 district school boards, year by year, and sets each board’s answers beside the file checks the 2026 review made on the accessibility documents the board posts on its website. It adds to two earlier articles: Not Readable, Not Current, Not There, on the documents themselves, and The 2026 Results Are Public, on the published results and the letters to two Ministers.
- Few answers can be seen. A compliance report was reached on the websites of 26 of the 72 boards on 6 October 2026. Adding earlier copies archived by the Wayback Machine, a report for at least one year from 2015 to 2025 was found for 28 boards. For 44 boards no report for any of those years was found. That does not mean those boards did not file; the Ministry holds every report filed.
- Almost every answer found is Yes. Twenty-five boards told the province at least once that they met the website question put to them. Two boards answered No to the 2023 question on WCAG 2.0 Level AA, and one board posted a No for 2025 and later replaced it with a Yes. Every compliance answer on the 14 reports for 2025 reached on board websites is Yes.
- The files tell a mixed story. The file checks are a narrower test than a board’s answer, which covers all of its websites. Of the 25 boards that answered Yes, 3 had every accessibility document the review scored meet the basic file checks that applied to it, and at 9 no document scored met them. Of the 14 boards that answered Yes to the direct question on WCAG 2.0 Level AA in 2021 or 2023, 2 had every document meet the checks and at 8 none did.
- The question has changed from form to form, but the requirement has not. The 2021 and 2023 forms ask about WCAG 2.0 Level AA directly. The 2019 and 2025 forms ask whether the board meets the Information and Communications Standards, the part of the regulation that contains the website rule (in 2019, the requirements not covered by its other questions). The WCAG requirement did not end in 2025: the 2025 form folds it into the wider question, lists “World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0” in the resources printed under that question, and gives WCAG 2.0 a box of its own to tick when the answer is No. The 2017 form asks nothing about websites.
1. Introduction
A parent who reads with a screen reader depends on a board’s website, and on the documents posted there, being made so that assistive technology can use them. The province asks each board, on its accessibility compliance report, to say whether that is so. Those reports are filed with a director under section 14 of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, which provides: “A person or organization shall make an accessibility report filed under subsection (1) available to the public” (Ontario 2005, s. 14(2)). The earlier article on this review found that the compliance report was not reached on the websites of 46 of the 72 boards (Not Readable, Not Current, Not There).
This article asks a narrower question. Where a board’s answers can be seen, what did the board tell the province about its websites, and how do those answers sit beside what the review measured in the board’s own accessibility documents on 6 October 2026? The two are not the same test, and neither decides whether a board has met its legal obligations. A board’s answer is its own statement about all of its websites. The review’s file checks look at a handful of documents, at four basic checks each. What the comparison can show is whether a board that told the province its websites conform also posts accessibility documents that meet four basic checks a screen reader needs.
2. What the regulation requires and what the form asks
2.1 WCAG and section 14
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) are published by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the international body that sets standards for the web. Version 2.0, published in 2008, sets out testable success criteria for making web content usable by people with disabilities, including people who use a screen reader, a magnifier, captions or a keyboard in place of a mouse. Examples include a text alternative for each image, content that a screen reader can follow in a sensible order, enough contrast between text and background, and a declared language so that the reader pronounces the words correctly. Each criterion sits at Level A, AA or AAA. Conforming at Level AA means meeting every Level A and Level AA criterion. W3C has since published WCAG 2.1 and 2.2, but the Ontario regulation still names 2.0. W3C gives a plain overview at WCAG 2 Overview (W3C 2026).
The Integrated Accessibility Standards set the standard for school board websites in section 14. Designated public sector organizations, which include school boards, “shall make their internet websites and web content conform with the World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0, initially at Level A and increasing to Level AA, and shall do so in accordance with the schedule set out in this section” (Ontario 2011, s. 14(2)). The schedule has two steps:
1. By January 1, 2014, new internet websites and web content on those sites must conform with WCAG 2.0 Level A.
O. Reg. 191/11, s. 14(4)
2. By January 1, 2021, all internet websites and web content must conform with WCAG 2.0 Level AA, other than,
i. success criteria 1.2.4 Captions (Live), and
ii. success criteria 1.2.5 Audio Descriptions (Pre-recorded).
2.2 Does section 14 reach a PDF?
The section applies “to web content published on a website after January 1, 2012” (Ontario 2011, s. 14(5)(b)). The regulation never uses the word PDF, so whether a posted PDF is web content is a reading of the text rather than a word in it. It is a well-supported reading. The regulation’s own definition of a web page, taken from WCAG, is “a non-embedded resource obtained from a single Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) using Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) and any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it by a user agent” (Ontario 2011, s. 14(7)), and a PDF at an address on a board’s website is fetched in exactly that way and shown by a browser or a PDF reader. W3C publishes techniques for meeting WCAG 2.0 in PDF files, covering tags, reading order, alternative text, document language and titles (W3C 2016). W3C no longer maintains that 2016 page and now carries the same PDF techniques under its techniques for WCAG 2.2 (W3C n.d.); the 2016 version is cited here because the regulation names WCAG 2.0. The province’s own accessibility guidance reads the regulation the same way. Its page When public websites are not accessible gives the example of an organization that posted its bylaws on its website as a document in 2009, and concludes: “Because the bylaws document was posted on their website prior to January 1, 2012, WCAG 2.0 Levels A/AA requirements do not apply to the document” (Ontario 2025). A document posted after that date is, on the same reasoning, held to WCAG 2.0. The review’s written method takes this step and says so. That guidance is not legal advice, and a court could read the regulation differently.
A second duty applies whatever the answer on PDFs. Section 12 requires every organization to “upon request provide or arrange for the provision of accessible formats and communication supports for persons with disabilities” (Ontario 2011, s. 12(1)), and the same guidance, closing one of its examples, adds: “If the documents are publicly available, the organization is required to make them available to a person with a disability, in another format, in a timely manner at no additional cost” (Ontario 2025). So a parent can ask for an accessible copy. That duty sits beside section 14 and does not replace it: a request is a step a sighted parent does not have to take, and this review measured the copy each board chose to post.
2.3 What counts as web content
Figure 1 shows, on an illustrative board page, what counts as web content. In words: the menus and links, the headings and text, images and charts, video and audio, forms, and every document the board posts are all web content the board controls. So is a board’s own document kept on an outside host and opened from the board’s page. A document written by another organization, which the board only links, is outside section 14 for the board.
Where a file is stored does not change who is responsible for it. Section 14 applies to web content “that an organization controls directly or through a contractual relationship that allows for modification of the product” (Ontario 2011, s. 14(5)(a)). A board controls its own policy, plan or report wherever the file sits: it wrote the document, it can replace it, and it chose where to put it. The province’s 2023 compliance report form uses the word the same way: “‘controls’ means that your organization is able to add, remove and/or modify content and functionality of the website”. Keeping files elsewhere is common. Of the 174 accessibility documents the review reached, 68 sat at an address outside the board’s own domain: 55 in the file stores of the website platforms boards use, 11 on Google Drive, Google Docs or Microsoft SharePoint, and 2 on other document servers. The review scored each one as the board’s own document. An outside host is not a way around the posting duties either. The regulation requires a board to “post the accessibility plan on their website, if any” and to “post the status report on their website, if any” (Ontario 2011, s. 4(1)(b) and 4(3)(b)). The review counted a document as posted when a parent could reach it from the board’s own website. A file reached that way is posted on the board’s website, wherever the file is stored, and it is the board’s to make accessible. The review did not count a file a parent cannot reach from the website, and whether such a file is posted within the meaning of the regulation is not a question this review decides.
2.4 “Not practicable”
Section 14 has an exception for cases where meeting it is not practicable. It applies “Except where meeting the requirement is not practicable” (Ontario 2011, s. 14(5)), and in deciding that question an organization “may consider, among other things, (a) the availability of commercial software or tools or both; and (b) significant impact on an implementation timeline that is planned or initiated before January 1, 2012” (s. 14(6)). Read alone, “not practicable” could sound like room for a board to say it is too busy or short of money. The province’s guidance accepts that cost or a lack of resources can be a reason, but it sets conditions. The guidance says the decision should be made “in good faith” and documented. On cost, the guidance points to the Human Rights Code, under which “a mere statement, without supporting evidence, that the cost is too high based on speculation or stereotypes is not enough”; any other reason “should also be supported by compelling and quantifiable evidence”. On software, an organization may rely on paragraph (a) “Only after you’ve tried your best to achieve the web accessibility standards and you’ve determined that no commercial software or tools exist” (Ontario 2025). Its worked example is a company whose claim fails “Because the company has not provided quantifiable evidence”.
2.5 The help that exists
The four checks in section 4 test only the basics, and the help to meet them exists. The compliance report form asks for a Yes or a No, and a board that answers Yes is not claiming the exception; and the exception does not remove the separate duty in section 12 to provide an accessible format on request. Cheapest is to make a document accessible when it is written, with tools boards already have:
- Microsoft Word can save a tagged PDF. Microsoft’s instructions tell the user to “Ensure the option Document structure tags for accessibility checkbox is selected” (Microsoft n.d.).
- Adobe Acrobat Pro includes a Make Accessible guided action that adds tags, a language and a title to an existing file (Adobe 2026).
- The PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC), whose home is the PDF/UA Foundation and which axes4 hosts, is “a free PDF accessibility checking tool” with a WCAG check set (PDF/UA Foundation and axes4 n.d.). It reports the same faults the four checks in section 4 look for.
Fixing a file already posted is ordinary, paid work, and Canadian firms do it. Three examples:
- AFTIA, an Ottawa company (Adobe n.d.), offers PDF accessibility remediation, with managed options for “full AODA/WCAG 2.2 AA compliance” (AFTIA n.d.).
- David Berman Communications, also of Ottawa, remediates PDF, Word, PowerPoint and other files to WCAG 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 and to PDF/UA, and offers either to fix the files or to “teach you how” (David Berman Communications n.d.).
- Crawford Technologies, of Toronto, makes AccessibilityNow Remediate, a tool its maker says “Generates WCAG and PDF/UA compliant documents” (Mailing Systems Technology 2021).
Where the software used to write a document can produce a tagged PDF, and the document is made accessible as it is written, the extra cost is small, and the province’s guidance asks for quantifiable evidence before cost can be relied on. We name these firms and tools only to show that the help exists. School Board Research has no relationship with any of them and does not endorse them.
2.6 The website question, form by form
Section 14 sits in Part II of the regulation, headed Information and Communications Standards, which runs from section 9 to section 19. Besides websites, Part II covers feedback processes, accessible formats and communication supports on request, emergency and public safety information, and duties of educational institutions and libraries. It defines information as including “data, facts and knowledge that exists in any format, including text, audio, digital or images, and that conveys meaning” (Ontario 2011, s. 9(1)). So a board that answers Yes to the Information and Communications question on the 2025 form is answering Yes for section 14, and so for WCAG 2.0 Level AA, along with the rest of Part II. The 2025 form makes the link itself: under that question it lists WCAG 2.0 among its resources, and a board that answers No is asked to tick each area of non-compliance, one of which is “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0)”.
The compliance report form has asked about websites in different words in different years. Table 1 gives the question for each reporting year as the form words it. Only the 2021 and 2023 forms ask about WCAG 2.0 Level AA. The 2015 reports found are the Ministry’s printouts of what each board filed, and where they ask about websites they ask about new websites at Level A, the first step of the schedule.
| Reporting year | Question | Words of the question | What it covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Q1, where asked | “Do your new internet websites and the content on them conform to the World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level A? (IASR s. 14)” | New websites, WCAG 2.0 Level A. The 2015 reports found are the Ministry's printouts of what each board filed, and the questions differ from board to board; one of the four 2015 reports found asks no website question. |
| 2017 | None | No website or Information and Communications question. | Not asked. |
| 2019 | Q16 | “Other than the requirements cited in the above questions, is your organization complying with all applicable requirements for the information and communications standards in effect under the Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation?” | All other Information and Communications requirements not covered by earlier questions, which include section 14 (websites). No question naming WCAG. |
| 2021 | Q14 | “As of January 1, 2021, do all your organization’s internet websites conform to World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level AA (except for live captions and pre-recorded audio descriptions)?” | All websites, WCAG 2.0 Level AA. |
| 2023 | Q5.a | “Do all your organization’s internet websites conform to World Wide Web Consortium Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 Level AA (except for live captions and pre-recorded audio descriptions)?” | All websites, WCAG 2.0 Level AA. Asked of a board that answered Yes at Q5 (has a website). |
| 2025 | Q2 | “Is your organization in compliance with all applicable requirements of the Information and Communications Standards?” | All Information and Communications requirements, which include section 14 (websites) and so WCAG 2.0 Level AA. No website question of its own, but the form lists WCAG 2.0 as a resource and as a box to tick when the answer is No. |
3. What the boards told the province, year by year
Table 2 counts, for each reporting year, how the 72 boards answered the website question on every compliance report that could be found: the report on the board’s website on 6 October 2026, and earlier copies archived by the Wayback Machine. “No report found” means that no report for that year was found in any of those places. It does not mean that the board did not file one.
| Answer | 2015 | 2017 | 2019 | 2021 | 2023 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Said Yes | 3 | 0 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 14 |
| Said No | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| Two versions, answer changed (No, then Yes) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| No website question on the form | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Answers not in posted file | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| No report found | 68 | 69 | 69 | 65 | 58 | 57 |
| Total boards | 72 | 72 | 72 | 72 | 72 | 72 |
Three patterns stand out. First, most answers cannot be seen at all. In no year was a report found for more than 15 of the 72 boards, and for 44 boards no report for any year from 2015 to 2025 was found. Second, where an answer was found it is nearly always Yes: 3 in 2015, 3 in 2019, 7 in 2021, 11 in 2023 and 14 in 2025. In all, 25 boards answered Yes to the website question at least once. Third, only three No answers were found in eleven years, and each came with the board’s own account of the work still to be done.
The Waterloo Region District School Board answered No to the 2023 question on WCAG 2.0 Level AA, certified 11 December 2023. In the comment box it wrote: “We anticipate that our website will be fully updated for WCAG compliance by December 2024.” No later report from the board was found. The Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Centre-Est de l’Ontario also answered No in 2023, on a copy whose attestation box is not ticked, with the comment “L’objectif est que l’ensemble des pages et sites soient conformes d’ici Mars 2025.” Its report for 2025, certified 8 December 2025, answers Yes to the Information and Communications question.
The St Clair Catholic District School Board posted a report for 2025, certified 23 December 2025, that answers No to the Information and Communications question and ticks the non-compliance box for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG 2.0). Its comment reads in part: “While we were previously in compliance, sections of our current website no longer meet these standards due to planned migration and updates to a new website platform.” By 6 October 2026 that report had been replaced on the board’s website by one certified 14 May 2026, after the end of the 2025 reporting year, which answers Yes to the same question.
Some boards added comments to a Yes. On its 2025 report the Rainy River District School Board answered Yes to the Information and Communications question and wrote “Compliance rate of 98% for website”. The Niagara Catholic District School Board answered Yes and, describing the accessibility features of its new sites, added in brackets “on main pages, not necessarily within policies or other documents”. The Thames Valley District School Board answered Yes on a 2025 report certified 14 October 2025; that report was no longer at its address on the board’s website on 6 October 2026, and the review scored the board’s 2023 report, which also answers Yes.
4. The four checks, and what they leave out
4.1 The checks
The review did not test whether any board’s website conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level AA. It ran four simple checks on each accessibility policy, multi-year plan and annual status report it reached, and the first of the four on the compliance report, which is filed on the Ministry’s own form. Each check asks whether one basic thing a screen reader needs is present in the file, and each is tied to one WCAG 2.0 success criterion at Level A, the lowest level. A document met the checks when it met every check that applied to it. Table 3 sets them out.
| Check | What the review looked for | WCAG 2.0 success criterion | The question it answers for a screen-reader user |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Content available as text | Every page with visible content gives up running text a screen reader can read, rather than a picture of text (such as a scanned page) or characters that do not decode to words. | 1.1.1 Non-text Content (Level A) | “If I use a screen reader, does this document say anything to me at all?” |
| 2. Language declared | The file states its language: in a PDF, the document language setting; on a web page, the language attribute. | 3.1.1 Language of Page (Level A) | “Will my screen reader read this in the right voice, or in the wrong one?” |
| 3. Structure present | The PDF is tagged (it carries a structure tree), or the web page has at least one heading. A file that does not meet check 1 does not meet this check either. | 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (Level A) | “Can I jump through this document by its headings, or only read it start to finish?” |
| 4. A title of its own | The file carries a title that names the kind of document (policy, plan, report) and its subject (accessibility), and nothing in it names a different document. | 2.4.2 Page Titled (Level A) | “When this document is open in a tab among fifteen others, can I tell which one it is?” |
Checks 1 to 3 are presence checks that a machine makes the same way on every file. Check 4 reads the title set in the file against a published rule; the close cases were decided against the same published rule. The four are a floor, not the standard. They do not test:
- whether the reading order makes sense, or whether tags and headings are applied correctly (check 3 asks only whether a structure exists);
- whether images and charts have useful alternative text;
- whether tables have header cells, or links and form fields are labelled;
- whether the colour contrast is enough, or the text can be enlarged without loss;
- whether the declared language is the right one (a French document marked as English still meets check 2), or whether the title describes the document well;
- any of the further criteria that Level AA adds.
A document that meets all four checks has met the checks tested and nothing more; it has not been shown to conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AA. A document that does not meet one of them has a basic barrier, and because every Level A criterion is also part of Level AA, that barrier stands in the way of Level AA as well.
4.2 The boards that answered Yes, set against their files
Of the 25 boards that answered Yes at least once, three had every document the review scored meet the checks: the Greater Essex County District School Board (3 of 3), the Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Centre-Est de l’Ontario (2 of 2) and the Toronto District School Board (4 of 4). At nine, no document scored met them: Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic, District School Board Ontario North East, Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic, Kenora Catholic, Lakehead, London District Catholic, Northeastern Catholic, Rainbow and Thames Valley. The other 13 fall between. Most of the Not met results on policies, plans and status reports rest on the title check alone: of the 118 such documents that did not meet the checks, 65 met the first three and did not meet only the fourth. With the title check set aside, the number of boards at which no document scored met the checks falls from nine to two (Rainbow and Thames Valley), and the number at which every document met them rises from three to nine. The title check is kept because a title is the first thing a screen reader announces, and the breakdown is given so that a reader can weigh it.
The direct question on WCAG 2.0 Level AA, in 2021 or 2023, was answered Yes by 14 boards. Two of them, Greater Essex County and Toronto District, had every document scored meet the checks. At eight, no document scored met them: District School Board Ontario North East, Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic, Kenora Catholic, Lakehead, London District Catholic, Northeastern Catholic, Rainbow and Thames Valley. Three of the eight answered Yes in three different reporting years: Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic (2019, 2023 and 2025), Lakehead (2015, 2021 and 2023) and London District Catholic (2019, 2021 and 2023).
A Yes is not a sign that a board does worse on the files. Counting only the policies, plans and status reports, 12 of the 48 documents scored at the 25 boards that answered Yes met the checks (25 per cent), against 18 of the 100 documents scored at the other 47 boards (18 per cent). At both groups, most documents did not. Seven boards had every document scored meet the checks; four of them have no compliance report answer that could be found.
5. When a certified Yes meets the files
5.1 What a Yes certifies
A compliance report carries a signed statement. The Act requires it: “An accessibility report shall include a statement certifying that all the information required to be provided in the report under this Act has been provided and that the information is accurate”, signed for an organization “by a director, a senior officer or other responsible person with authority to bind the organization” (Ontario 2005, s. 15(1)). That is why a Yes matters: it is the board’s signed word to the province, and a reader can fairly take it as a description of the board’s websites on the day it was signed.
This review cannot say whether any answer was accurate on the day it was certified, and it makes no suggestion that any answer was inaccurate when it was given. An answer speaks for the day it was signed, websites change, and the review measured a handful of documents, at four basic checks, years after many of the answers were given. What the review can show is where a board’s Yes and the files it posts point in different directions.
5.2 Scanned pages and empty titles
Some files show at a glance why the checks matter. Seven of the files the review reached are pictures of pages, with no text a screen reader can read: six yield no text at all, and the seventh yields 22 characters across six pages.
- Four are compliance reports that answer Yes to the website question or, for 2025, to the Information and Communications question that contains it: the London District Catholic report for 2023 (13 pages, reached at an address ending in “123454-ead794a0-407b-47d6-9eb9-6a3e458ce88a.pdf”), the District School Board Ontario North East report for 2023 (13 pages), the Waterloo Catholic report for 2023 (10 pages) and the Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic report for 2025 (11 pages). The report in which a board gives its certified answer is itself posted in a form a screen reader cannot read.
- The Superior-Greenstone report for 2023 (3 pages), whose file names an office multifunction printer, a RICOH MP 5055, as the program that made it.
- The Wellington Catholic annual status report (4 pages), made with “Microsoft: Print To PDF” and reached through a download address whose path ends in “GetFile.ashx”.
- The Halton Catholic accessibility policy (6 pages, 22 characters of text).
Four more compliance reports, at Kenora Catholic, Lakehead, Rainbow and Waterloo Region, are the Ministry’s fillable form as the board saved it. In a browser, and to a screen reader, the file shows only a notice to open it in a particular product; the review read the answers from the form data stored inside the file. The text check records what a screen reader gets from the posted file, whoever designed the form.
Others carry a title that tells a screen-reader user nothing, or the wrong thing. The title is what a browser tab and a screen reader announce first. These are the titles as set in the files, each of which did not meet the title check:
- “Untitled”, on the Renfrew County Catholic accessibility policy;
- “Policy Title”, the template’s own label left in place, on the Bluewater accessibility policy;
- “1”, on the Lakehead accessibility policy;
- “2,05”, on the accessibility policy of the Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l’Ontario;
- “DRAFT POLICY”, on the Waterloo Catholic accessibility policy;
- “HALTON CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD”, on the Halton Catholic multi-year plan;
- “Exemple de gabarit de plan pluriannuel” (sample template for a multi-year plan), on the Conseil scolaire catholique Providence multi-year plan;
- “MultiYearAccessibilityPlan”, on the Rainy River annual status report;
The checks are narrow, and they give the benefit of the doubt where they can: the Thunder Bay Catholic multi-year plan, titled “Copy of MultiYearAccessibilityPlan 2023-2027.docx”, met the title check, and did not meet the checks because the file declares no language and carries no tags. On the review’s reading, each of the files listed above fails at least one Level A success criterion as posted, and WCAG 2.0 does not allow a Level AA claim while a Level A criterion is unmet (W3C 2008). That is the review’s reading of its own checks, not a finding under the regulation. The tools in section 2.5 exist for faults of exactly these kinds.
5.3 Three boards say partially, publicly
Among the pages the review captured, three boards post a statement that their website conforms to WCAG 2.0 Level AA only in part, and each points to its PDF documents. On 6 October 2026 the Thames Valley District School Board’s accessibility page said: “Thames Valley District School Board’s website is partially conformant with WCAG 2.0 level AA. Partially conformant means that some parts of the content do not fully conform to the accessibility standard (for example, older PDF documents)” (Thames Valley District School Board 2026). The board answered Yes on its 2023 report, certified 4 April 2023, and on a 2025 report certified 14 October 2025. The page sits on the board’s rebuilt website, and the earliest archived copy found is the one made for this review on 9 October 2026, so the archive does not show when the passage was added. The Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Grandes Rivières says: “Au moment de sa mise en ligne, ce site Web rencontrait ou surpassait les exigences de niveau AA des Règles pour l’accessibilité des contenus Web (WCAG) 2.0, à l’exception des documents PDF qu’il contient” (CSCDGR 2026); no compliance report from it was found. Similarly, London District Catholic School Board’s accessibility section said: “The LDCSB website is partially conformant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Level AA.” It went on: “While we strive to ensure all content meets these standards, some areas of the website, such as older PDF documents and certain legacy content, may not yet fully conform” (London District Catholic School Board 2026). Archived copies narrow the date of the passage: a capture of the page made on 15 June 2026 does not carry it, and one made on 3 October 2026, three days before this review, does. The board answered Yes to the website question on its reports for 2019, 2021 and 2023; the 2023 report, certified 9 March 2023, answers Yes to the question whether all of its internet websites conform to WCAG 2.0 Level AA. No report for 2025 was found.
5.4 Six boards claim more
Other boards claim more. Each statement below is as the page or document read on 6 October 2026, followed by what the review found in that board’s files and reports:
- Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, accessibility page: “This website is WCAG 2.0 AA Compliant.” (PVNCCDSB 2026). None of the three documents scored met the checks; no compliance report was found.
- District School Board of Niagara, policy C-03, dated May 2024: “DSBN websites and web content conform with web content accessibility guidelines” (DSBN 2024). Neither of the two documents scored met the checks; no compliance report was found.
- St Clair Catholic District School Board, accessibility plan for 2026 to 2030: “The SCCDSB website has recently been updated and is compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0, and this is an ongoing commitment” (St Clair Catholic 2026). Two of the three documents scored met the checks; its 2025 report answered No in December 2025 and Yes on the version posted in May 2026.
- Avon Maitland District School Board, multi-year plan page, on section 14: “This is achieved through our new website launched in 2020 which complies with WCAG 2.0 Level A” (Avon Maitland 2026). Level A is what the regulation required of a new site from 2014; Level AA is what it has required of every site since 1 January 2021. Neither of the two documents scored met the checks; no compliance report was found.
- Waterloo Catholic District School Board, accessibility page: “Every effort has been made to follow the Web Content Guidelines (WCAG 2.0) to the Priority Level AA” (Waterloo Catholic 2026). One of the four documents scored met the checks; the board answered Yes in 2021 and 2023.
- Peel District School Board, accessibility page: “We are working toward having all documents on this website fully accessible and compliant with AODA regulations” (Peel 2026). One of the three documents scored met the checks; no compliance report was found.
Section 6 sets every board’s answers beside its files.
6. Board by board
6.1 Figure 2
Figure 2 shows the whole picture on one page: one row for each board, the answers by reporting year on the left, and the review’s file checks on the right. Every cell carries a word as well as a colour. The same information is in Table 4 below as text, which a screen reader can read cell by cell.
6.2 Table 4 and how to read it
Table 4. All 72 boards: answers by year and file checks (select to open)
| Board | 2015 (WCAG 2.0 A, new sites, where asked) | 2019 (Q16, all Info. and Comms.) | 2021 (Q14, WCAG 2.0 AA) | 2023 (Q5.a, WCAG 2.0 AA) | 2025 (Q2, all Info. and Comms.) | Documents scored that met the checks | Compliance report (text check) | Accessibility policy (four checks) | Multi-year plan (four checks) | Annual status report (four checks) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Algoma District School Board (ADSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Algonquin and Lakeshore Catholic District School Board (ALCDSB) | Yes | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Avon Maitland District School Board (AMDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not scored | Not met | Not met |
| Bluewater District School Board (BWDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board (BHNCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Bruce-Grey Catholic District School Board (BGCDSB) | Not asked | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | 1 of 2 met | Met | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Catholic District School Board of Eastern Ontario (CDSBEO) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | 1 of 2 met | Met | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Conseil des écoles publiques de l'Est de l'Ontario (CEPEO) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire catholique MonAvenir (CSCM) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire catholique Providence (CSCP) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not scored | Not met | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire de district catholique de l'Est ontarien (CSDCEO) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Aurores boréales (CSDCAB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Grandes Rivières (CSCDGR) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not scored | Not met | Not met |
| Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Centre-Est de l'Ontario (CECCE) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | No | Yes | 2 of 2 met | Met | Not scored | Met | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario (CSDCNO) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 1 met | Not scored | Not scored | Met | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire de district catholique Franco-Nord (CSCFN) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not scored | Not met | Not met |
| Conseil scolaire public du Grand Nord de l'Ontario (CSPGNO) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire public du Nord-Est de l'Ontario (CSPNE) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Met | Not scored |
| Conseil scolaire Viamonde (CSVIAMONDE) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| District School Board of Niagara (DSBN) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| District School Board Ontario North East (DSBONE) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored |
| Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board (DPCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Durham Catholic District School Board (DCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 2 of 2 met | Not scored | Met | Met | Not scored |
| Durham District School Board (DDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 2 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Met | Met |
| Grand Erie District School Board (GEDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 4 met | Met | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Greater Essex County District School Board (GECDSB) | Not Found | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 3 of 3 met | Met | Not scored | Met | Met |
| Halton Catholic District School Board (HCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Halton District School Board (HDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not scored | Not met | Not met |
| Hamilton-Wentworth Catholic District School Board (HWCDSB) | Not Found | Yes | Not Found | Yes | Yes | 0 of 4 met | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board (HWDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Hastings & Prince Edward District School Board (HPEDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | 1 of 2 met | Met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored |
| Huron Perth Catholic District School Board (HPCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Yes | 2 of 3 met | Met | Not scored | Not met | Met |
| Huron-Superior Catholic District School Board (HSCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (KPRDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Keewatin-Patricia District School Board (KPDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Kenora Catholic District School Board (KCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not met | Not scored | Not met | Not met |
| Lakehead District School Board (LDSB-LH) | Yes | Not Found | Yes | Yes | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Lambton Kent District School Board (LKDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | 2 of 4 met | Met | Not met | Not met | Met |
| Limestone District School Board (LDSB-LM) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| London District Catholic School Board (LDCSB) | Not Found | Yes | Yes | Yes | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Near North District School Board (NNDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not scored | Not met | Not scored |
| Niagara Catholic District School Board (NCDSB-N) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | 1 of 3 met | Met | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Nipissing-Parry Sound Catholic District School Board (NPSCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Northeastern Catholic District School Board (NECDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Northwest Catholic District School Board (NWCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 1 met | Not scored | Not scored | Not met | Not scored |
| Ottawa Catholic School Board (OCSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Met | Not scored |
| Ottawa-Carleton District School Board (OCDSB) | Yes | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 2 met | Met | Not met | Not scored | Not scored |
| Peel District School Board (PDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Met |
| Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board (PVNCCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Rainbow District School Board (RDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored |
| Rainy River District School Board (RRDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | 2 of 4 met | Met | Not met | Met | Not met |
| Renfrew County Catholic District School Board (RCCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Renfrew County District School Board (RCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 1 met | Not scored | Not scored | Met | Not scored |
| Simcoe County District School Board (SCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Yes | 1 of 3 met | Met | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Simcoe Muskoka Catholic District School Board (SMCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Met | Not scored |
| St Clair Catholic District School Board (SCCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | No, then Yes | 2 of 3 met | Met | Not met | Met | Not scored |
| Sudbury Catholic District School Board (SCDSB-S) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Superior North Catholic District School Board (SNCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 2 met | Not scored | Met | Not met | Not scored |
| Superior-Greenstone District School Board (SGDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Answers not in posted file | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Thames Valley District School Board (TVDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Yes | 0 of 2 met | Not met | Not scored | Not met | Not scored |
| Thunder Bay Catholic District School Board (TBCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Yes | 1 of 3 met | Met | Not met | Not met | Not scored |
| Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 3 of 3 met | Not scored | Met | Met | Met |
| Toronto District School Board (TDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Not Found | Not Found | 4 of 4 met | Met | Met | Met | Met |
| Trillium Lakelands District School Board (TLDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 2 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Met | Met |
| Upper Canada District School Board (UCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 2 met | Not scored | Not met | Met | Not scored |
| Upper Grand District School Board (UGDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 1 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Met | Not met |
| Waterloo Catholic District School Board (WCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | Yes | Not Found | 1 of 4 met | Not met | Not met | Met | Not met |
| Waterloo Region District School Board (WRDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | No | Not Found | 0 of 4 met | Not met | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Wellington Catholic District School Board (WELCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board (WECDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| York Catholic District School Board (YCDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | 0 of 3 met | Not scored | Not met | Not met | Not met |
| York Region District School Board (YRDSB) | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Not Found | Yes | 2 of 4 met | Met | Met | Not met | Not met |
Table 4 and Figure 2 leave out 2017, because the 2017 form asked no website question; Table 2 shows the three 2017 reports found.
In Table 4, “Not Found” means that no compliance report for that year was found on the board’s website or in the Wayback Machine. “Not asked” means that year’s form had no website question. “Met” and “Not met” are the results of the four file checks in section 4 (the text check alone for the compliance report), and “Not scored” means the review did not reach that document, or reached only a document of another kind (such as a customer service policy where the regulation asks for an accessibility policy), so there was nothing to measure. Each board’s entry on the Report Card gives the document behind each result and the route from the home page to it.
“Answers not in posted file” applies to one report, the Superior-Greenstone District School Board’s report for 2023. The file the board posted has three pages: the summary page and two pages of organization details. The pages that carry the questions and the board’s answers are not in it, so its answer on websites cannot be read. The summary page says: “Your responses to the questions on your accessibility report indicate that your organization is in compliance with AODA standards.” Because the answer to the website question itself is not shown, it is not counted as a Yes.
6.3 About these results
As on the Board Report Card, each file-check result records what School Board Research found on the board’s public website on the date of the review, 6 October 2026, read against a written method, available on request, and checked against the board’s own documents as captured that day. Met and Not met are the review’s research interpretation of each file under that method. A result of Not met means that the document could not be read by the review’s checks, as the requirement defines them. It is not a finding that the board has contravened the law, and it is not legal advice.
7. What a parent can do
Each board’s results, with the document relied on for every result, are on the Accessibility report card. A parent who needs a document in another format can ask the board for one; the regulation provides that an organization “shall upon request provide or arrange for the provision of accessible formats and communication supports” (Ontario 2011, s. 12(1)). A parent who finds something the review missed can report it through the public report form.
A board that considers a result wrong can respond through the board response form. The board must show that the document or language that answers the requirement was published on its website on the date of the review, in a form that meets the requirement, and give the route from the board’s home page by which a parent would have reached it. A document posted or changed after the date of the review does not change the 2026 result; it will be read in the next review.
8. The letters to the Ministers
On 15 October 2026 School Board Research wrote to the Minister of Education and to the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility with the sector results on accessibility documents (both PDF). The letters name no board. They record that in June 2026 we asked the Ministry for Seniors and Accessibility, under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, for the compliance reports the 72 boards have filed since 2023, and that the Ministry issued a fee estimate of $24,000, now under appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. Until those records are available, the boards’ answers can be read only where the boards post them.
9. Data, method and limitations
9.1 Where the answers come from
The answers come from every accessibility compliance report that could be found for the 72 district school boards: the 26 reports reached on board websites in the review of 6 October 2026, and 24 earlier or other copies: captures in the Wayback Machine archive, and one copy still live on a board’s site and fetched on 15 October 2026. Every report reached on 6 October 2026 was archived in the Wayback Machine on 9 October 2026, and the one live copy fetched on 15 October 2026 was archived on 16 October 2026.
For each report we recorded the reporting year, the certification date, the website question as the form words it, the board’s answer and any comment the board wrote on that question. Answers were read from the PDF’s text where it had one, from the page images where the file is a scan, and from the form data stored inside the file where the Ministry form displays only a reader notice. A separate check re-read every answer against its source file.
Two of the 50 reports are the Ministry form saved with the board’s answers rather than a printed report: Lakehead’s for 2023 and Northeastern Catholic’s for 2021, whose form data carry certification dates of 14 February 2025 and 10 May 2022 and a submitted flag of 0. Each is counted because the board posted it on its own website as its compliance report, and the Ministry’s copy was not seen. The one 2013 report found asks no website question and is not shown.
9.2 The file checks
The file checks are the 2026 review’s results, scored under a written method and published on the Board Report Card on 12 October 2026. Large language models were used to read the reports and the files and to check the records; the method is available on request and every result is published.
9.3 Limitations
A board’s answer is its own statement and has not been tested here. The answer covers all of the board’s websites; the file checks cover at most four documents per board, at four Level A checks each. A document that meets the four checks has not been shown to conform with WCAG 2.0 Level AA, and a document that does not meet them does not show that a board’s website as a whole does not conform. Nothing in this article is a finding that any board has or has not met its obligations under the Act or the regulation; that is for the Ministry, the Accessibility Directorate of Ontario or a court. Boards are named because the article reports what each board itself told the province and what each board posts, and every result can be checked against the board’s own documents.
“Not Found” is a limit of what could be seen, not a finding that a board did not file. The comparison is between answers given in different years and documents read on one day, 6 October 2026; a board’s documents may have changed since it last reported. A document posted after 6 October 2026 will be read in the next review.
References
Adobe. 2026. “Make Accessible guided action.” Adobe Experience League. Updated 23 April 2026. https://experienceleague.adobe.com/en/docs/document-cloud-learn/acrobat-learning/accessibility-tutorials/make-accessible-action
Adobe. n.d. “AFTIA digitizes financial onboarding workflows with Adobe.” Adobe customer success story. https://business.adobe.com/customer-success-stories/aftia-case-study.html
AFTIA. n.d. “PDF Accessibility Remediation (PAR).” https://www.aftia.com/par
Avon Maitland District School Board. 2026. “Multi-Year Accessibility Plan (2024-2029)” page, as captured 6 October 2026. https://www.amdsb.ca/apps/pages/MYAP; archived 16 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261016165422/https://www.amdsb.ca/apps/pages/MYAP
CSCDGR (Conseil scolaire de district catholique des Grandes Rivières). 2026. “Accessibilité” page, as captured 6 October 2026. https://cscdgr.education/conseil/information-general/accessibilite/; archived 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009023635/https://cscdgr.education/conseil/information-general/accessibilite/
David Berman Communications. n.d. “Document and Multimedia Remediation.” https://davidberman.com/accessibility/accessibility-remediation-services-pdf-word-powerpoint-indesign-html/
DSBN (District School Board of Niagara). 2024. Policy C-03, “Accessibility Standards for Ontarians with Disabilities,” dated May 2024, as captured 6 October 2026. https://policy.dsbn.org/Policies/Details/C-03; archived 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009035045/https://policy.dsbn.org/Policies/Details/C-03
London District Catholic School Board. 2026. “Strategic Planning + Reporting” page, Accessibility (AODA) section, as captured 6 October 2026. https://www.ldcsb.ca/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1076453&type=d&pREC_ID=1360064. Archived without the passage on 15 June 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20260615044827/https://www.ldcsb.ca/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1076453&type=d&pREC_ID=1360064 and with it on 3 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261003175944/https://www.ldcsb.ca/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1076453&type=d&pREC_ID=1360064 and 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009044500/https://www.ldcsb.ca/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=1076453&type=d&pREC_ID=1360064
Mailing Systems Technology. 2021. “Crawford Technologies Releases AccessibilityNow® Remediate.” 23 September 2021. https://www.mailingsystemstechnology.com/article-4849-Crawford-Technologies-Releases-AccessibilityNow%C2%AE-Remediate.html
Microsoft. n.d. “Create accessible PDFs.” Microsoft Support. https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/accessibility/office-accessibility/create-accessible-pdfs
Ontario. 2005. Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, S.O. 2005, c. 11. e-Laws consolidated statute, read 16 October 2026. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/05a11
Ontario. 2011. Integrated Accessibility Standards, O. Reg. 191/11. e-Laws consolidated regulation, read 16 October 2026. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/110191
Ontario. 2025. “When public websites are not accessible.” Government of Ontario. Updated 31 July 2025. https://www.ontario.ca/page/when-public-websites-are-not-accessible
PDF/UA Foundation and axes4. n.d. “PDF Accessibility Checker (PAC): History.” https://pac.pdf-accessibility.org/en/history
Peel District School Board. 2026. “Accessibility” page, as captured 6 October 2026. https://www.peelschools.org/accessibility; archived 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009052041/https://www.peelschools.org/accessibility
PVNCCDSB (Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board). 2026. “Accessibility” page, as captured 6 October 2026. https://www.pvnccdsb.on.ca/our-board/accessibility/; archived 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009052340/https://www.pvnccdsb.on.ca/our-board/accessibility/
School Board Research. 2026a. Board Report Card: Accessibility (AODA), 2026 review. https://schoolboardresearch.ca/board-report-card/2026-review/accessibility/
School Board Research. 2026b. “Not Readable, Not Current, Not There: Accessibility Documents on Ontario School Board Websites.” https://schoolboardresearch.ca/?p=2074
School Board Research. 2026c. “The 2026 Results Are Public: What We Found at 72 School Boards, and What We Wrote to Two Ministers.” 15 October 2026. https://schoolboardresearch.ca/2026/10/15/2026-school-board-results/
School Board Research. 2026d. Letter to the Minister of Education on school board accessibility documents under the AODA. 15 October 2026. https://schoolboardresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/SBR-Brief-MinisterEducation-AODA-SectorResults-FINAL-20261015-v8.pdf
School Board Research. 2026e. Letter to the Minister for Seniors and Accessibility on school board accessibility documents under the AODA. 15 October 2026. https://schoolboardresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/SBR-Brief-MinisterSeniorsAccessibility-AODA-SectorResults-FINAL-20261015-v8.pdf
St Clair Catholic District School Board. 2026. “Accessibility Plan” (2026 to 2030), as captured 6 October 2026. https://www.sccdsb.net/about-sccdsb/accessibility/accessibility-plan/; archived 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009054034/https://www.sccdsb.net/about-sccdsb/accessibility/accessibility-plan/
Thames Valley District School Board. 2026. “Accessibility” page, as captured 6 October 2026. https://www.tvdsb.ca/schools/accessibility/; archived 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009061147/https://www.tvdsb.ca/schools/accessibility/
Waterloo Catholic District School Board. 2026. “Accessibility” page, as captured 6 October 2026. https://www.wcdsb.ca/about-us/accessibility/; archived 9 October 2026 at https://web.archive.org/web/20261009062308/https://www.wcdsb.ca/about-us/accessibility/
W3C. 2008. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
W3C. 2016. PDF Techniques for WCAG 2.0. https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/pdf.html
W3C. 2026. WCAG 2 Overview. Web Accessibility Initiative. Updated 17 September 2026. https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/
W3C. n.d. Techniques for WCAG 2.2, PDF techniques. Web Accessibility Initiative. https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Techniques/#pdf
Updated 19 October 2026: the legal disclaimer and the description of the method (written, and available on request) were brought into line with School Board Research’s standard wording. No finding changed.
Legal disclaimer. School Board Research is not a law firm, its researchers are not lawyers, and nothing in this article is legal advice. The results are research findings about documents published on board websites, read against a written method, available on request, on the date stated. They are not findings that any board has contravened the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, the Integrated Accessibility Standards or any other law; only a regulator, the Ministry or a court can make that finding. A reader who needs advice about their own situation should consult a lawyer.
School Board Research publishes independent analysis of Ontario school board data and policy. We are not lawyers, and nothing in this publication is legal advice. If you identify an error, please write to info@schoolboardresearch.ca. Corrections are noted on the page where they are made.
Leave a Reply