Supt. of Motor Vehicles v. HRC (1999), 131 B.C.A.C. 280 (SCC);
214 W.A.C. 280
MLB headnote and full text
[French language version follows English language version]
[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]
………………..
Temp. Cite: [1999] B.C.A.C. TBEd. DE.030
Terry Grismer (Estate) (appellant) v. British Columbia Council of Human Rights (Member Designate Tom Patch) (respondent) and British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia (respondents) and Attorney General for Ontario, Attorney General for New Brunswick, Attorney General for Alberta, British Columbia Human Rights Commission and Council of Canadians With Disabilities (intervenors)
(26481)
Indexed As: Superintendent of Motor Vehicles (B.C.) et al. v. Council of Human Rights (B.C.)
Supreme Court of Canada
L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ.
December 16, 1999.
Summary:
The Superintendent denied Grismer a driver’s licence because he failed to meet the minimum standard for field of vision. Grismer’s internal appeal was unsuccessful. Grismer then filed a discrimination complaint with the Council of Human Rights, alleging discrimination on the basis of physical disability. A Member Designate of the Council found discrimination and awarded nominal damages. The Superintendent sought judicial review. The review proceeded notwithstanding Grismer’s subsequent death. The trial judge dismissed the application (see 25 C.H.R.R. D/309). The Superintendent appealed.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal, in a judgment reported 100 B.C.A.C. 129; 163 W.A.C. 129, allowed the appeal and set aside the Member Designate’s decision. Grismer’s estate appealed.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the Member Designate’s decision.
Civil Rights – Topic 960.1
Discrimination – Mental or physical disability – General – Persons suffering from homonymous hemianopia (restricted peripheral vision always less than the required standard of 120 degrees) were subject to a blanket prohibition against driving, without provision for individual evaluation to determine whether they could compensate for their visual impairment and drive without undue risk – Not every person with this visual impairment was unable to drive without undue risk – The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the blanket prohibition constituted discrimination on the basis of physical disability contrary to the Human Rights Act – Although the purpose of the standard was rationally connected to the Superintendent’s function and was adopted in good faith, the blanket prohibition (nonaccomodating standard) was not necessary to accomplish the legitimate purpose of an acceptable level of driver safety – The standard failed to incorporate every possible accommodation to the point of undue hardship, whether that hardship took the form of impossibility, serious risk or excessive cost – There was no bona fide and reasonable justification (Human Rights Act, s. 8) – The driver involved in this case should have been given the opportunity to show, in an individualized evaluation, that he could drive without undue risk.
Civil Rights – Topic 980.1
Discrimination – Accommodation – General – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 960.1
].
Civil Rights – Topic 1183
Discrimination – Exemptions or exclusions – General – Justifiable requirement – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 960.1
].
Civil Rights – Topic 1189
Discrimination – Exemptions or exclusions – General – Differentiation on reasonable and bona fide grounds – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 960.1
].
Civil Rights – Topic 1192
Discrimination – Exemptions or exclusions – General – Undue hardship – [See
Civil Rights – Topic 960.1
].
Cases Noticed:
Public Service Employee Relations Commission (B.C.) v. British Columbia Government and Service Employees’ Union, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 3; 244 N.R. 145; 127 B.C.A.C. 161; 207 W.A.C. 161, appld. [para. 8].
Eldridge et al. v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624; 218 N.R. 161; 96 B.C.A.C. 81; 155 W.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 41].
Statutes Noticed:
Human Rights Act, S.B.C. 1984, c. 22, sect. 3 [para. 13].
Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210, sect. 8 [para. 14].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Lövsund, P., Hedin, A., and Törnros, J., Effects on Driving Performance of Visual Field Defects: A Driving Simulator Study (1991), 23 Accid. Anal. & Prev. 331, pp. 331 to 342 [para. 35].
Counsel:
Frances M. Kelly, for the appellant;
Deborah K. Lovett, Q.C., and J. Douglas Eastwood, for the respondents, B.C. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and Attorney General of British Columbia;
Hart Schwartz and David Milner, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;
Bruce Judah, Q.C., and Cameron Gunn, for the intervenor, Attorney General for New Brunswick;
Roderick Wiltshire, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Alberta;
Deidre A. Rice, for the intervenor, B.C. Human Rights Commission;
David Baker, for the intervenor, Council of Canadians with Disabilities.
Solicitors of Record:
Community Legal Assistance Society, Vancouver, B.C., for the appellant;
Lovett Westmacott, Victoria, B.C., for the respondents, B.C. Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and Attorney General of British Columbia;
Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Ontario;
Department of Justice, Fredericton, N.B., for the intervenor, Attorney General for New Brunswick;
Alberta Justice, Edmonton, Alberta, for the intervenor, Attorney General for Alberta;
British Columbia Human Rights Commission, Victoria, B.C., for the intervenor, British Columbia Human Rights Commission;
Advocacy Resource Centre for the Handicapped, Toronto, Ontario, for the intervenor, Council of Canadians with Disabilities.
This appeal was heard on October 13, 1999, before L’Heureux-Dubé, Gonthier, McLachlin, Iacobucci, Major, Bastarache and Binnie, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.
On December 16, 1999, McLachlin, J., delivered the following judgment in both official languages for the Supreme Court of Canada.
