British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868 (1999)

British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v.

British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868

Terry Grismer (Estate) Appellant v.

The British Columbia Council of Human Rights

(Member Designate Tom Patch) Respondent and

The British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia Respondents and

The Attorney General for Ontario, the

Attorney General for New Brunswick, the

Attorney General for Alberta, the British Columbia

Human Rights Commission and the Council of

Canadians with Disabilities Interveners

Indexed as: British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)

File No.: 26481.

1999: October 13; 1999: December 16.

Present: L'Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie JJ.

on appeal from the court of appeal for british columbia

Civil rights -- Discrimination -- Bona fide and reasonable justification --Physical disability -- Superintendent of Motor Vehicles refusing to issue driver's licences to persons with homonymous hemianopia --No individual assessments carried out -- Whether blanket refusal without possibility of individual assessment constituted discrimination --Application of Meiorin test to public service provider -- Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, s. 8.

The claimant suffered from a condition called homonymous hemianopia (H.H.) which eliminated most of his left-side peripheral vision in both eyes. The B.C. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles cancelled his driver's licence on the ground that his vision no longer met the standard of a minimum field of vision of 120 degrees. While exceptions to this standard were permitted in other cases, people with H.H. are not permitted to hold a driver's licence in B.C. After repeatedly being denied a licence despite passing the requisite tests, the claimant filed a complaint with the B.C. Council of Human Rights. The Council found that the standard was prima facie direct discrimination and that the Superintendent had failed to show that applying the visual field standards inflexibly, without individual assessments, was reasonably necessary. The Superintendent was ordered to assess the claimant and to place restrictions on his licence if necessary. A judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed the Superintendent's petition for judicial review but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision. Since the Court of Appea...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here