David John Read Milner

The applicant alleged age discrimination when the respondent renewed his commercial driver's licence for only one year, up to his 65th birthday, instead of the usual five years.

The respondent argued that the Highway Traffic Act regulations require drivers aged 65 and over to complete annual testing, and that these requirements apply despite the Human Rights Code.

The Tribunal found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application because section 47(2) of the Code and section 19 of Regulation 340/94 explicitly state that the licensing requirements apply despite the Code.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant alleged discrimination based on disability regarding visual acuity requirements for driver's licenses and the Licence Appeal Tribunal's (LAT) failure to process his appeal.

The Tribunal previously issued a Case Assessment Direction noting potential lack of jurisdiction over LAT due to judicial immunity and required submissions.

The applicant failed to provide submissions, so the application against LAT was dismissed as abandoned.

The Ministry of Transportation asserted the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over Highway Traffic Act medical standards.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to file a Reply and submissions on this jurisdictional issue.

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.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability after his 'B' driver's licence was downgraded to a 'G' licence due to a heart condition.

The respondent challenged the Tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant's efforts to reinstate his licence fell under s. 17(2) of O. Reg. 340/94, which is exempted from the Human Rights Code by s. 19(2).

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to clearly demonstrate it was operating under s. 17(2), as its communications referred to a waiver application under s. 21, which is not exempt from the Code.

The Tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction to hear the application.

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.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Following the vote, the applicant sought to enlarge the bargaining unit description to include the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, a claim it had previously withdrawn.

The respondent employer and intervener union objected to this expansion.

The Board held that while the expanded unit would normally be appropriate in a displacement application, the applicant could not change its position and enlarge the unit after the parties had met to review the employee list and the vote had been taken based on the narrower unit.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit to be the narrower unit originally sought and directed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the list of eligible voters.