🌐 Also available in: Français
In this practical episode of Curb to Cabin Canada, Donna J. Jodhan talks with Devin Glim, a staff lawyer at ARCH Disability Law Centre, and his law student, Patrick Robitaille, about what the law actually gives a passenger with a disability. Devin explains how his organizing with the Disability Justice Network of Ontario led him to Osgoode Hall Law School and ARCH, and why he believes effective change needs both lawyers and organizers, while Patrick describes what a Disability Law Intensive student does on a transportation file. When Donna asks about blind travellers who are met with a wheelchair instead of a sighted guide, Devin calls the Canada Transportation Act and its accessibility regulations a bare minimum of protection, and Patrick says the Canadian Transportation Agency follows the principle of self-determination, so providers must accept a passenger’s own assessment of their needs. Patrick adds that airlines and airports cannot escape responsibility by using contractors.
Comparing the two main doors for a complaint, Patrick explains why the Canadian Transportation Agency, which has no one-year filing limit, is the proper channel for a travel-related complaint, and Devin says it is really the only option. The guests say human rights law still applies on the smaller regional carriers the regulations do not reach, explain undue hardship and what Air Canada v. Rose means for passengers, and discuss WestJet’s 300-pound limit on power wheelchairs and why passengers should give airlines as much notice as possible. Donna challenges the phrase “duty to accommodate,” and the conversation closes with how ARCH could raise its profile and with Patrick’s experience in Osgoode’s clinical programme at ARCH.
TRANSCRIPT
Podcast Commentator: [upbeat music] Greetings from Toronto, and welcome to Curb to Cabin Canada. What really happens to blind and low-vision passengers when they fly? Your host, Donna J. Jodhan, is a lifelong blind advocate and law graduate whose landmark Charter case in 2010 compelled the Government of Canada to make its websites accessible to all Canadians, not just those with sight. Each episode follows one part of the air travel journey from curb to cabin, and asks the airlines, airports, and agencies a single question: Is this working? Donna serves on accessibility advisory committees in the aviation sector. None of them pays for this programme, and none sees a question before it is asked. Curb to Cabin Canada is presented to you by Donna J. Jodhan, with support from sponsors to be announced. None of our sponsors have any say in what this programme reports. Now, let’s dive in with your host, Donna J. Jodhan.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Hello, everybody, and welcome to another episode of Curb to Cabin Canada, the podcast where we talk about what really happens when disabled Canadians travel and what it takes to make every step of that journey work. I’m Donna J. Jodhan. I’m blind, I fly, and I know how much can go wrong between the curb and the cabin. Today, I’m here with Devin Glim, a staff lawyer at ARCH Disability Law Centre, and his law student, Patrick Robitaille. In the spirit of full disclosure, ARCH has acted for me personally in the past. Devin and Patrick, welcome to the show.
Devin Glim: Yeah, hi there.
Patrick Robitaille: Yeah, thank you.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Okay. So Devin, before you went to law school, you were an organizer with the Disability Justice Network of Ontario’s Youth Action Council in Hamilton, helping to push for city-funded sidewalk snow clearing and for reform of Ontario’s Assistive Devices Program. That’s a lot. What carried you from City Hall to delegations to Osgoode Hall Law School and the Disability Law Intensive at ARCH, and what can a lawyer do for disabled people that an organizer cannot do, and the reverse? Tell us.
Devin Glim: Thanks, Donna. Yeah, so, at that time, I was in university, and I really just wanted to make a difference in my community. And it was also something that affected me personally as a wheelchair user. And so that kinda started it all. And I found that I liked advocating. I liked helping people. And so that is one of the main reasons that I pursued law at Osgoode Hall. And yeah, coming to ARCH, it just felt like a natural fit for my interests. In terms of what a lawyer can do versus an organizer, I think in order to make effective change, you need both lawyers and organizers. The laws that exist today are often strict, and lawyers have to operate within them. And so there are certain things that a lawyer cannot help with, or cannot pressure politicians to change the laws and things like that, whereas an organizer who may not have the same restrictions on them can lead the community into creating that pressure to affect change. Lawyers can do that as well, but it is often more effective when it’s an organizer that is within said community that is seeking that change.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: So you’ve done a bit of everything, haven’t you?
Devin Glim: [laughs] Yeah. Not yet. There’s still a little over—
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: There’s still—
Devin Glim: I think—
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Still a long way to go, right? [laughs]
Devin Glim: Yeah, definitely.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: How long have you been with ARCH?
Devin Glim: I started with ARCH four years ago. I think three or four years. And as a lawyer, this is my second year.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Oh, okay. And I think you were Gabriel’s student when I had the case against the CBSA.
Devin Glim: Yeah, definitely.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Yeah. That’s right.
Devin Glim: I was either an intensive student or, like, our second year. But yes.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Yeah, I remember that. [laughs] So Patrick, you are joining us as a law student working with Devin at ARCH. What drew you to disability rights law? What does a student actually do on a transportation file? And what has surprised you most about how the law treats travellers with disabilities?
Patrick Robitaille: Well, Donna, thank you so much. It really is a pleasure to be here. And I have to say, it really is a pleasure to work under Devin. It’s an amazing experience here. And I’m really, really grateful for it. So to talk about the three sort of questions you asked me there, like what drew me to disability law, I think in my first year of law school, I took an elder law course, and it had a really big impact on me. It helped me to appreciate that the law operates in ways that can pose challenges for certain people. And when I found out about the Disability Law Intensive programme, I was drawn to it. I wanted to learn how you can address these kinds of challenges head-on from a legal lens. And I guess essentially I wanted to learn how to use my education to make a difference. When you think about in the setting here what a student does on a transportation file, students at ARCH wind up doing a real wide variety of tasks on a file. And a transportation file is no different. So I think what’s invaluable about the experience here at ARCH is that students are really in the trenches throughout the life cycle of a file. So you’re working directly with clients under the guidance of these experienced lawyers. You get to conduct a real wide range of research to understand all the potential legal issues and their implications. You get to present solutions, even non-legal solutions perhaps, that can best help the client resolve an issue. And ARCH is a really interesting place because the practice here with one-on-one clients ultimately supports— this work ultimately supports the broader disability community across Ontario and beyond. So it’s really, really interesting work. And what surprises me most about how the law treats travellers with disabilities, I would say, and this could be true of many of the areas of law I’m exposed to here, is it’s the complexity of everything. It’s just how different laws have different jurisdictions. In the context of travelling, it could be something applies domestically, but as soon as that aircraft carrier gets outside of domestic borders, there’s different standards that apply. And the gaps in these protections between jurisdictions and how disability law as a practice works to sort of fill these gaps for clients and how regulations and laws in this area of law act to sort of provide a bare minimum standard. And the difference sort of between providers being required to provide certain accessibilities versus accommodations that they have to make. So it really is complex and it’s really context-specific and I think that’s what I enjoy a lot about it, and I think it’s definitely what surprises me most about it.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: And I guess there’s also the added complexity between provincial and federal laws, you’d say?
Patrick Robitaille: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: A lot to deal with. [laughs] Now, as a blind traveller myself, I hear the same story again and again. The passenger asks for help getting through the airport and is met with a wheelchair instead of a sighted guide. Under Canadian law, is a blind passenger entitled to the kind of assistance that they actually need rather than the kind that is easiest to provide? And what can they do when they decline the wheelchair and the help simply disappears?
Devin Glim: That is a great question, Donna. I want to start off by saying it’s always advisable to let the airport and the airline know well in advance of an alter of your accommodation needs. So with that in mind, within Canada, we essentially, in accordance to Air Canada, we have the Canada Transportation Act. And within that act is the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations, or the ATPDR. And so that law and regulations provide protections for people with disabilities who are travelling on a flight, either domestically or internationally. It is only a bare minimum of protection. It does not erase or eliminate any undue human rights law or the duty to accommodate that exist in other pieces of legislation. I think Patrick, you want to add to that?
Patrick Robitaille: Yeah, Donna, maybe to speak with sort of what Devin has just set in mind as a lens or some context to this. In regards to your specific question, at an airport a blind passenger may be entitled to the assistance they require rather than what is simply easiest to provide. So the Canadian Transportation Agency, which operates under the act that Devin mentioned, adopts the principle of self-determination. Service providers need to accept a person’s own assessment of what their needs are and how to best meet those needs. The provider also has an obligation to communicate with the traveller about this. Additionally, personnel are required to have training in guidance and/or orienting a person with visual impairment. And they have to provide this assistance within the person’s preferred method and to the best of their ability. This also comes out of the regulations from the act. So essentially the provider must give way to the request to not be given a wheelchair in this situation. It is, I think, worth noting the regulations do allow a provider to offer meaningful options. But regarding the help disappearing completely when a wheelchair is refused, a service provider is not authorized to provide accommodations in a way that detracts from a person’s sense of dignity and confidence. So complete withdrawal of assistance would likely fall into this category. So what can a person do in this situation? I guess as a practical bit, try to find someone who works there, someone… It could be somebody in security, it could be someone from another airline carrier. And explain your situation and the help that you’re seeking. I think it’s important that you document in detail what has happened to you so that you have that for the future if you need to reference it. It would be recommended to contact the airline and the airport. And obviously you can file a complaint with the airline or with the CTA, the Canadian Transportation Agency.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Now, I’m not sure if I was hearing correctly on my last trip. I think I was told that if I did not take the wheelchair to the door of the aircraft, then they would not be taking me into the aircraft. I’m not sure about that. You have any comments?
Devin Glim: Every situation is different, and I unfortunately don’t have all the information than, like, currently say what happened. But again, the airlines have a duty to accommodate without reducing or without disrupting the other person’s dignity and confidence. So I’m not really sure what to say about that specific situation. That seems like that shouldn’t happen.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: I think what really bothers me still, it’s not as much as before, but it’s still there, it’s when you go to book your trip, you say you’re vision impaired or you’re blind, and what comes out of the mouth of the agent? “Do you require a wheelchair?” And I say, “No, I told you I’m vision impaired. I don’t need a wheelchair.” But it still gets under my skin at times when the agent says that. So, yeah. A blind passenger experiences one continuous journey, but it is managed by several organizations: the airport at the curb, the airline and often its ground-handling contractor at check-in and the gate, and the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority at screening. When assistance fails at one of those handoffs, tell me, who is legally responsible, and does it change anything when the person who fails works for a contractor rather than for the airline itself?
Devin Glim: So I do not do two cases that use whatever may be unhappy, I’m gonna say, are general statements. And again, each situation is different. And so I guess in terms of the responsibility of the staff and Patrick and other contractors, it really depends on what part of the journey that the failure occurred. Generally, anything that is flight-related is the airline. This includes, or this may include, the check-in, moving through security, issues with boarding the plane. And there may be other aspects where the airport is responsible or another organization. So it really depends on the situation, where you are, which city, what airport, what country, and all of that. In terms of contractors, Pat, do you wanna take that one?
Patrick Robitaille: Yeah. Regarding contractors, airlines and airports are generally responsible for the contractors that they retain. So I guess another way to put that is airlines and airports can’t escape a legal responsibility by using an outside party or a contractor. Contractors need to be properly trained to provide assistance. Essentially, they’re gonna be held to the same standard as employees. And as the Canadian Transportation Agency has affirmed in recent decisions, this holds true, that contractors are gonna be held to the same standards if they’re operating under an airline or an airport.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Because I know that several years ago, I had a case against a certain airport for the same reason, and they tried to escape responsibility by saying, “It’s the contractor, it wasn’t them.” And we argued this and we argued this, and finally the CTA said, “No, you are responsible, not the contractor.” But it took a few years for us to get to the stage when the airport authority finally could not do anything because they were told, “It’s your responsibility. It’s not your contractor’s responsibility.” And they really argued this vociferously. I mean, things have changed a little bit, but that was a harrowing experience for me and—
Devin Glim: Definitely. And I think it also shows how challenging litigation can be, and how, like how does it argue for your rights can take a lot of time and energy. So it’s always something that needs to be considered. But yeah.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Well, when a passenger with a disability decides to take the complaint further, there are two main doors: the Canadian Transportation Agency, which in 2026 can award just over $24,000 each for pain and suffering and for a wilful or reckless practice, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where Tribunal awards for pain and suffering are capped at $20,000. And a complaint filed more than a year after the events may be turned away. How should a traveller choose between these two doors, and why does that choice matter so much?
Patrick Robitaille: Donna, that is a great question, and I think maybe I’ll start just by saying that there are two doors here, but the Canadian Transportation Agency has been given authority to deal with accessibility and human rights complaints pertaining to travel. So this should be the chosen path if the barrier here is specific to actual transportation. In fact, there’s actually a good chance if an issue like this was filed through the Human Rights Commission, the commission would send the case over to the Canadian Transportation Agency because they’re the ones now with jurisdiction for this. And so the Canadian Transportation Authority can theoretically as well, as you mentioned in the question, provide higher compensation, but I did wanna note it can be difficult to get this. You made mention of wilful and reckless practice or disregard. And the burden of proving that is quite high. It’s very seldom successful. So although it may read that there is a higher payout there, that can sometimes be a little bit more difficult to attain. But I think one benefit for sure, and you had mentioned this about the limitation on the Human Rights Commission, is that the Canadian Transportation Agency doesn’t have that limitation. So you don’t have to file within a year. You’re able to file without that limitation period. I think it’s also important to recognize that the Canadian Transportation Agency only provides compensations for harm directly related to the transportation. So it’s not going to consider losses for things in the periphery like hotels and other expenses. The Canadian Transportation decision-makers, this is also interesting to note, they’ve been given this jurisdiction to hear these complaints because they have expertise when it comes to transportation and when it comes to understanding and interpreting the underlying legislation. So they really truly are likely to be more effective at assessing these cases and at providing appropriate remedies. And on the note of their expertise, that means that as an expert tribunal, if a case were won and it was appealed and ended up in the courts, the courts are gonna give a lot more deference to them as a decision-maker and the decision that they made because they have a lot of expertise in the area.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: So you’re saying then that it would be more effective to go to the Canadian Transportation Agency rather than—
Patrick Robitaille: Yes. I think with all the things that I’ve mentioned, I think most specifically because they have been given that jurisdiction and they are the proper channel to hear a travel-related complaint.
Devin Glim: Yeah. And just to add, right? Again, if a person was to go to the commission, the commission would likely just send the case to the Canadian Transportation Agency. So yeah, it really is only one path to take, and that is to the CTA.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: But how would I as a layperson know about this? How would I know which one to go? I mean, I’ve had so much experience, I would know where to go. I think I would. But how would the mainstream person know where to go? Where is it written that it is more effective to go to the CTA?
Devin Glim: I don’t know, Donna. That’s why we have a podcast like this to educate the community on how to do certain things. I do want to be clear that it’s not just more effective to go to the CTA than the commission. It really is the only option. Because as, at the CTA, I don’t know.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: So if it’s the only option and I took it to the CHRC, would they just then tell me to go over to the CTA?
Devin Glim: Most likely.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Aha, okay. All right. Okay. The Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations apply to large carriers, generally to those that carried at least one million passengers in each of the two previous years, and many of the aircraft rules apply only to planes with 30 or more passenger seats. What protections does a blind traveller have on a smaller regional or northern carrier, and is it a gap that the law should close?
Patrick Robitaille: Donna, you do point out an interesting and true fact here that there can be a gap because there’s this threshold of how many passengers are travelling and how many passengers are on the plane and that can trigger certain protections that might be missing on these smaller carriers. In light of that gap, I think it’s important to remember that human rights laws are always still going to apply. Human rights laws are quasi-constitutional, and they are going to apply when somebody is providing that travel service. And these smaller regional carriers still have a duty to accommodate a blind traveller. The regulation at play here is simply a minimum. Section two of the regulation says, “For greater certainty, nothing in these regulations is to be construed as limiting the duty to accommodate under the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other Act of Parliament.” So even where the regulation does apply, the human rights legislation is going to be in effect. And so the thresholds you mentioned do present a gap in the law, but human rights legislation is ultimately attempting to fill it. And passengers will always still receive an individualized analysis of their specific accommodation needs and the resources of the accommodation provider. Those will still be taken into consideration on both sides when assessing a situation like this.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: So you’re saying, in essence, that the gap is closing. Would you go that far?
Devin Glim: I wouldn’t say closing. I think we need to look at this question through a human rights lens, in that no matter what the regulation says, human rights law still applies. So any service provider or any airline is still required to do an individual assessment of a passenger’s needs and attempt to accommodate that passenger up until undue hardship. And so that analysis will, again, it may lead to a different decision depending on the airline, where it is, who the passenger is, what their needs are, and all other considerations that need to be made when looking at an accommodation. So on a smaller regional or local carrier, there is always still the human rights laws that exist.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: In November of 2025, you told Global News that wheelchairs for a lot of people is an extension of their body, and that a policy like WestJet’s 300-pound weight limit on power wheelchairs will always exclude someone. How does Canadian accommodation law treat a blanket rule like that compared with an individual assessment of each passenger’s needs? And what can a traveller do today if they’re told that their mobility aid cannot fly?
Devin Glim: That is a good question. So I think I’m gonna break it down into a two-step. So in terms of the passenger, when a passenger is looking up, they should always look at the aircraft requirements ahead of time to kind of know what the situation is and whether they can be accommodated on the aircraft or not. In terms of, like, a policy like that, a, like a law, legislation is not in contact with all other relevant legislation and human rights law. So what we mean by this is that a rule like this may have a adverse impact on someone in the community or a group of people, such as power wheelchair users in this case. And so it really does come down to the passenger providing as much notice as possible to the airline, kind of working with them to try and do as accommodation possible. Airlines are still required to accommodate persons with disabilities, even if they have a cargo reaching policy as in question. And each request for an accommodation needs to be assessed on individual basis. So again, it really does depend on the situation, where they’re travelling, who they’re travelling with. If a passenger is told that they cannot fly with their mobility, they… I mean, in terms of Air Canada and the rules they’re saying, as long as the request is made 21 days in advance, then they can ask for a aircraft to be substituted with a different, more accessible aircraft. But that is only Air Canada. Any other airlines still owe a duty to accommodate per Canada’s human rights legislation. Again, a letter is unnecessary. A letter as possible should be given to the airline. And if all else fails, then the traveller can file a complaint with the CCRA.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: That’s very interesting. Talk is starting to wind down, but I have this question for you guys. Your colleagues at ARCH represented Timothy Rose in Air Canada v. Rose. And in March of 2025, the Federal Court of Appeal found that Air Canada had not shown that it would suffer undue hardship if it had to substitute an accessible aircraft for a passenger whose power wheelchair could not fit through the cargo door. For listeners who are hearing the phrase “undue hardship” for the first time, what does it mean and what does the Rose decision mean for passengers beyond power wheelchair users, including blind traveller with a guide dog?
Patrick Robitaille: So Donna, to explain undue hardship, and Devin, by all means, jump in if I’m sort of not framing this correctly. But undue hardship is defining a point where making an accommodation becomes too difficult, becomes too unsafe, or becomes too expensive. So it’s essentially the point at which, in this case, a service provider wouldn’t have to provide the accommodation because it falls into one of those categories. And in the case of Rose, that case shows that airlines have a duty to accommodate, even if it’s inconvenient or difficult. Inconvenience and difficulty isn’t undue hardship. And even if the requested accommodation goes beyond what is mandated by the regulations, I think that’s an important one with Rose. Essentially Rose confirms that regulations don’t give airlines an out. They can’t regulate their way out of having a duty to accommodate. They still have to accommodate unless it reaches the point of burdening them with an undue hardship.
Devin Glim: I also want to add that, as Patrick mentioned, the cost and safety and the availability of resources, those are very high threshold beliefs. And so most accommodations that may arise shouldn’t necessarily reach that point. But yes.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: I’m not fond of that term, the duty to accommodate. I just, for some reason, just doesn’t go down very well with me. If either of you had to choose a substitute term, what do you think it could be?
Devin Glim: That’s on the spot here. I’m not sure. I always thought that the duty to accommodate is kind of like a duty, like an obligation that a sort of provider has. So I’m not sure if that would change it. How about you, Pat?
Patrick Robitaille: That is maybe one of the most interesting questions I’ve ever been asked. [laughs]
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: [laughs] I don’t like the term, I really don’t. Sorry. [laughs]
Patrick Robitaille: It sounds almost military-esque.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Yeah, and it sort of sounds, maybe could be taken as being condescending as well. What do you think?
Patrick Robitaille: I like that it sounds firm. I like that it does represent to me, the word duty means, this is something that is required of you, and I like it in that sense, but now you got me thinking. I’ll have to write you after this, after I’ve been able to chew on that question a bit.
Devin Glim: How about you, Donna? What would you want it to be called?
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Sorry, say that again?
Devin Glim: What would you change it to?
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Ah. What would I put in place of that? [laughs] I should have thought of the answer before I asked the question. You got me there. You got me there. The duty to accommodate. Should it be a must to accommodate? I don’t know.
Devin Glim: We’ll have to do something on that one.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: You have to think about that, eh? [laughs] So I’m gonna close this interview with a general question to you both. I know that ARCH handles a lot of very interesting and exciting cases. I mean, I’ve been part of it all. I think I’ve had about maybe three cases in the past many years. We’ve won all of them, so I’m very pleased about that. What would you like to see ARCH do a bit more? I mean, they do so much already, but what do you think they can do to really enhance their presence and their profile for persons with disabilities?
Devin Glim: Well, I think as a veteran ARCH does so much work, and a lot of it they’re not getting the spotlight that it deserves, and they’re not doing as in the mainstream view as it could be. But yeah, I think that ARCH should keep doing like it’s been doing and advocating for people with disabilities and trying to create that change that we are all seeking in regards to accessibility and living a meaningful life as a person with a disability. And yeah, that is another really tough question there, Donna.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: [laughs] Sorry.
Devin Glim: Pat, do you have any thoughts on it?
Patrick Robitaille: Yeah. I mean, my lens on this is through the eyes of a student, and I would love to see ARCH continue to expand and grow its presence on the campus at Osgoode and beyond. I mean, it’s a small but mighty group of folks working here that work really, really hard for an area of law they really believe in. So I would just love to see that expand. I would love to see more students get exposure and opportunity to get through the door here. And I think maybe through those types of expansions it could continue to provide better supports and more awareness for the community, the broader community. But it’s an amazing experience. I mean, as a student here, the type of work we get to do and what we are exposed to is so important on so many different levels, and it’s so different than anything you could ever absorb inside of a classroom. And yeah, I hope it continues, and I hope it’s able to expand. Although, [laughs] I think it’s safe to say that everybody here gets worked pretty close to capacity. [laughs]
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Yeah, yeah. You mentioned the disability rights programme. Is that a new programme?
Devin Glim: Sorry. Disability right—
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: The disability rights— I think Patrick had mentioned it, about the disability rights programme, law programme.
Patrick Robitaille: No. Oh, just referencing the programme that I’m a part of, like why I was even given the privilege of being involved today on the podcast as a result of Osgoode’s programme connected to ARCH through the Disability Law Intensive. I’m not sure how long they’ve been doing this together. It’s over 10 years, 15 years the school’s been collaborating with ARCH. And so that programme is amazing. A small group of students every year get to come on board for what we refer to as clinical legal experiences in the school, where in lieu of classroom learning, you get part of your learning in a setting like this. And I’ll tell you, it’s one of the most incredible opportunities of my life and I’ve been absolutely loving it.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: I never knew about this programme. I have a law degree from the University of London, England. But I’m going to confess, I am not gonna go to the bar. I’m too… I just love doing these types of interviews and doing research with people. I don’t wanna go to the bar. I don’t wanna… Well, I wouldn’t say waste my time, I just don’t wanna spend my time doing [laughs] going to the bar. But—
Patrick Robitaille: Well, it’s an interesting profession in education. I mean, the education can help you understand how you can be a better advocate for the things you believe in. There’s a lot of people who get the education and don’t wanna get into the practice, but it really sets you up in life to advocate, to ask the right questions, to be curious. And I think there’s so much you can take from this education outside of being called to a bar.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Yeah, I agree. This has been a really, really interesting interview, and I’ve really appreciated the opinions you’ve expressed with regard to travel for passengers with disabilities. I wanna thank you both for having come on today. And if you feel that at any time in the future you’d like to say more, please reach out to me and let me know. I’d love to have you on again.
Devin Glim: Yeah. Amazing. Thank you for having us. It’s always wonderful talking with you. And yeah, we’re always happy to collaborate on future projects.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Thank you very, very much, Devin and Patrick. You have a good rest of the evening, and I’m sure we’ll be talking again very soon. Take care.
Devin Glim: Awesome. Thank you, Donna.
Patrick Robitaille: Thank you, Donna.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Yeah. Bye-bye now.
Patrick Robitaille: Take care.
Devin Glim: Bye.
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA: Bye-bye.
Podcast Commentator: Thank you for listening to Curb to Cabin Canada with your host, Donna J. Jodhan. Every episode we publish includes a full written transcript so that nothing said here sits outside of anyone’s reach. You’ll find it, along with the documents and decisions that we referred to today, online at https://donnajodhan.com/3c. If you work for an airline, airport, or agency along this journey and you’d like to speak for your own part of it, Donna would be happy to hear from you. The invitation is genuine, the address is on the website, and the questions are always sent in advance. If this episode was useful to you, please pass it along to someone who needs to hear it, a fellow traveller, a colleague, or the organization that really ought to be listening. Wishing you safe and accessible travel across Canada and beyond. Until next time. [outro music]
Donna J. Jodhan, LLB, ACSP, MBA
Global Leader In Disability Rights, Digital Accessibility, And Inclusive Policy Reform
Turning policy into progress for people with disabilities.
Connect With Me:
🌍 Website: https://donnajodhan.com
📧 Email: donna@donnajodhan.com
✏️ Blog (1): https://donnajodhan.com/blog
✏️ Blog (2): https://donnajodhan.com/sterling1
✏️ Blog (3): https://donnajodhan.com/sterling2
✏️ Blog (4): https://donnajodhan.com/blogspot
🛒 Etsy: https://donnajodhan.com/etsy
🎙️ Podcasts (Web): https://donnajodhan.com/podcasts
🎙️ Podcasts (Apple): https://donnajodhan.com/podcasts-apple
🎙️ Podcasts (Amazon): https://donnajodhan.com/podcasts-amazon
🎙️ Podcasts (Spotify): https://donnajodhan.com/podcasts-spotify
🎙️ Podcasts (iHeart): https://donnajodhan.com/podcasts-iheart-radio
💬 Facebook: https://donnajodhan.com/facebook
💬 LinkedIn: https://donnajodhan.com/linkedin
💬 X1 (Formerly Twitter): https://donnajodhan.com/x1
💬 X2 (Formerly Twitter): https://donnajodhan.com/x2
📽️ YouTube: https://donnajodhan.com/youtube
🛜 RSS: https://donnajodhan.com/feed