4 total
Mandatory biennial testing for drivers 80 and older does not violate Charter equality rights.
The applicant challenged the constitutionality of a regulation under the Highway Traffic Act that requires drivers 80 years of age and older to undergo biennial testing to renew their driver's licences.
The applicant argued this requirement discriminated on the basis of age contrary to s. 15 of the Charter.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the testing program is individualized, sensitive to the potential problems of aging, and not based on arbitrary or demeaning stereotypes.
The court concluded the regulation does not violate s. 15 of the Charter.
Judicial review dismissed; youth convictions count towards mandatory Highway Traffic Act licence suspensions.
The applicant sought judicial review of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to indefinitely suspend his driver's licence following his third impaired driving conviction.
The applicant argued that his first conviction, which occurred when he was a youth, could not be used to calculate the suspension under the Highway Traffic Act due to the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
He also argued that the Registrar was estopped from imposing the indefinite suspension because he had previously received an erroneous notice of a three-year suspension and a notice of eligibility for reinstatement.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no conflict between the provincial and federal legislation, and holding that the doctrines of public estoppel and legitimate expectations cannot override the Registrar's mandatory statutory duty to suspend the licence.
The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial justice properly applied the credibility test and adequately explained the careless driving conviction.
Appeal from a conviction for careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.
The appellant was charged after stopping his tractor trailer abruptly in a live lane of traffic on Trafalgar Road while being signalled to pull over by a provincial offences officer.
The sole ground of appeal was that the Justice of the Peace failed to properly apply the test in R. v. W. (D.).
The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the Justice of the Peace correctly applied the law and that the evidence supported the findings of guilt.
Matter remitted to Licence Appeal Tribunal to determine if valid delegation of power existed for licence suspension.
The applicant's driver's licence was suspended for failing to submit a satisfactory medical report.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal declined jurisdiction to hear the appeal, stating it lacked jurisdiction over suspensions under s. 32(12)(b)(ii) of the Highway Traffic Act.
The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal could only decline jurisdiction if it was satisfied that the Minister made the order or that there was a valid delegation of power to the Registrar.
As there was no evidence of such delegation in the record, the Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to assess its jurisdiction.
