Someone asked whether your organization’s website is legally compliant. Maybe it was your board. Maybe it was legal counsel reviewing a funding agreement. Maybe it was a procurement officer who added a compliance checkbox you weren’t expecting. You don’t have a confident answer, and you’re not sure what being wrong actually costs you.
The lookup below gives you the binding deadline, the regulation that creates the obligation, the penalty exposure, and a plain-language explanation of what it means for your website, filtered by your organization type and your current status. Before you use it, two things worth saying plainly: the “Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 AA by 2025” deadline you may have read about online is not a real Ontario regulation. It was never enacted. And small Ontario organizations under 50 employees are not exempt from the web accessibility obligations that are in force. The tool returns what the regulations actually say.
Tell me your organization type and where your site stands today, and I will show you the accessibility deadline, the regulation behind it, and what is actually at stake.
How this is calculated
This is a lookup, not a calculation. Your answers point to a cell in a table of enacted Canadian accessibility law; the deadline and penalty come straight from the regulations, not from a formula.
Your organization type selects which law applies: Ontario AODA, the federal Accessible Canada Act, or a federal Treasury Board directive.Your current status selects how that law reads for you right now, from not started through meeting WCAG 2.1 AA.This is planning information, not legal advice. Regulations change, and your real obligations depend on facts a lookup cannot know.
Before signing an accessibility attestation or answering a compliance order, confirm with your own legal counsel.
Is my small Ontario business really not exempt?
Correct, and this is the most common mistake. The AODA exempts small organizations from some paperwork, like the multi-year accessibility plan and the posted report. It does not exempt them from the WCAG 2.0 Level AA web standard itself, which has applied since January 1, 2021 regardless of size. A human rights complaint has no employee-count threshold at all.
What about the WCAG 2.1 AA by 2025 deadline I keep hearing about?
That one is not a real enacted Ontario regulation; it has circulated widely but was never passed into law. The binding Ontario standard is WCAG 2.0 Level AA, in force since January 1, 2021. WCAG 2.1 AA is the right target for procurement and federal work, but in Ontario it is best practice, not a statutory deadline.
How big are the penalties, really?
Under the AODA, the statutory maximum is $50,000 per day for individuals and $100,000 per day for corporations. In practice the Accessibility Directorate usually starts with a compliance order and a corrective-action plan, but a formal complaint changes the picture. The federal Accessible Canada Act has its own penalty scheme on top of that for federally regulated organizations.
Is this legal advice?
No. It is planning information drawn from publicly available regulations, meant to help you understand roughly where you stand. Your actual obligations depend on details a lookup cannot know: your employee count, your content, your history with regulators. Before you sign an attestation or respond to a compliance order, talk to your own legal counsel.
I’m not a lawyer, and this isn’t legal advice. It’s a hand. The dates and citations here are my read of the public regulations, meant to help you find your footing. Confirm anything binding with your own counsel before you sign an attestation.
Three things the tool will probably tell you that you weren’t expecting
Most people arrive with one of three wrong assumptions baked in. The tool will correct them in the result, but it helps to know what you’re walking into.
Small Ontario organizations are not exempt. Under Ontario’s Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) and its Integrated Accessibility Standards Regulation (Ontario Regulation 191/11, or O. Reg. 191/11), organizations with fewer than 50 employees are subject to the same WCAG 2.0 Level AA web standard as large organizations. The deadline for both large and small organizations was January 1, 2021. There is a small set of technical exceptions baked into the regulation, but the core standard (WCAG 2.0 Level AA) applies across the board. If someone told you that you were below the threshold, confirm that against the current O. Reg. 191/11 text before relying on it, because regulations change and the advice may be outdated.
“Partial” conformance is not conformance. For legal purposes under AODA and the Accessible Canada Act (ACA), a website that meets most of the standard is still non-compliant. There is no partial-credit zone. The consequence of that matters less in the day-to-day than in the moment you need to make an attestation or respond to a complaint, at which point “we’re mostly there” is not a defensible position. Know where you actually stand before that conversation arrives.
Federal obligations predate 2021 by a decade. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) has maintained a web accessibility standard for federal institutions since 2011; the current Standard on Web Accessibility has been in force since 2013. For new or significantly updated federal content, meeting WCAG 2.1 AA is a binding requirement under the Directive on Service and Digital: not guidance, not a best-practice recommendation, a directive. For federally regulated private-sector organizations covered by the ACA (banks, telecommunications carriers, broadcasters, and carriers under the Canadian Transportation Agency, or CTA), the ACA itself is a planning and reporting framework rather than a statute with a single binding WCAG date. The practical compliance baseline per Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and CTA guidance is WCAG 2.1 AA. The tool’s federal-private row carries a last-verified date and links to the current source because this is the area most in flux.
A Word about the penalty figures
When the tool returns a penalty exposure figure (under AODA, that’s a statutory ceiling of $50,000 per day for individuals and $100,000 per day for corporations), those are the maximum figures the statute authorises under AODA section 37. Actual enforcement orders are graduated and have historically been substantially lower. The ceiling matters because it tells you how seriously the legislature took the obligation; the realistic enforcement pattern matters because it tells you what the actual risk looks like. Both numbers belong in the same sentence.
How the lookup table was built
I built the table against the regulations directly: the AODA and O. Reg. 191/11, the Accessible Canada Act and its regulations, the Canadian Human Rights Act as it intersects with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) accessibility guidance, and the Ontario Human Rights Code as it relates to web access complaints through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO). The federal-private rows (ACA-covered organizations) carry a last-verified date in the tool output because federal guidance is still developing in this area and the administrative monetary penalty (AMP) framework under the ACA is not fully settled. If you think a citation in the result is outdated, the right move is to check the current regulation text and let me know. I’d rather fix the table than have a compliance team rely on a stale cite.
The tool covers five organization types: Ontario public-sector and broader-public-sector (including universities, hospitals, and municipalities), Ontario private-sector large (50+ employees), Ontario private-sector small (under 50 employees), federal institutions under TBS, and federally regulated private-sector organizations under the ACA. Each row returns a result for four current-status options: not started, in progress, meeting WCAG 2.0 AA, and meeting WCAG 2.1 AA.
Who built this and what they build to
I’ve been building for the web since 1996 and in WordPress since 2007. Accessibility has been in the technical requirements of every project I’ve taken since before AODA had enforcement teeth, not because a compliance calendar required it, but because WCAG 2.2 AA is the current published standard as of October 2023 and it’s the only standard that makes sense to build to if you care about whether your site actually works for the people who use it. Every project I take today is built to WCAG 2.2 AA, AODA, and the Accessible Canada Act obligations from the first commit. That’s also why I can tell you with some confidence what the gaps between your current state and the binding standard actually look like. I’m not estimating from the outside.
When the deadline is closer than you expected
If your result came back with a deadline you didn’t expect, or a penalty exposure that reframes the priority of this, the next step isn’t a procurement process. It’s a short call where you find out what the gap between your current site and the applicable standard actually looks like, and whether it’s something your team can address internally or whether it needs outside help.
For organizations that are newly in scope or trying to understand what a remediation engagement looks like, the right starting point is the technical services page, which covers accessibility auditing alongside performance and structured-data work. When you’re ready to talk specifics, the contact form is the right place to start. It’s not a pitch, it’s a short conversation about what your situation actually is.
Leave a Reply