HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Robert Catherine
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as Represented by the Ministry of Transportation
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price
Indexed as: Catherine v. Ontario (Transportation)
1This Application, filed under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), alleges that the respondent is discriminating against the applicant on the basis of age in respect of services. Specifically, the applicant alleges the respondent is discriminating against him by requiring him to submit to a driving test because he is aged 80 years or over.
2The respondent asserts that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application.
3The respondent acknowledges that s.16 of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, requires that, in order to be licensed to drive, any driver aged 80 years or over must successfully complete certain examinations relating to the person’s knowledge of the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations and concerning their fitness to drive in a safe manner. Section 16 of Regulation 340/94 contains the following provisions:
- The Minister may require that,
(a) any holder of a Class G or M driver’s licence who has reached the age of 80 complete successfully, once every two years, the applicable examination prescribed in section 15 and meet the qualifications prescribed in sections 14, 17 and 18, where applicable;
(d.1) any holder of a Class D driver’s licence who has reached the age of 80 complete successfully, once every year, the applicable examinations prescribed in section15 and meet the qualifications prescribed in sections 14 and 17;
4The respondent defends the above-noted statutory provisions and what it describes as its Senior Driving Program on the basis of road user safety. It also takes the position that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the Application based on a combined reading of s. 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act and s. 47(2) of the Code. Section 47(2) of the Code provides that where an Act or regulation which contravenes Part I of the Code states that it applies despite the Code, then the Code does not apply:
47(2) Where a provision in an Act or regulation purports to require or authorize conduct that is a contravention of Part I, this Act applies and prevails unless the Act or regulation specifically provides that it is to apply despite this Act.
5Section 19(1) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act states:
- (1) The examinations and qualifications required of an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence by section 16, clauses 17 (1) (j) and (k), subsections 17 (4) and 18 (1), clause 18 (2) (a) and sections 21.1 and 21.2 apply despite the Human Rights Code.
(2) Subsection 17 (2) applies despite the Human Rights Code.
6The applicant alleges that s. 16 of the Highway Traffic Act discriminates against him on the basis of age and therefore contravenes the Code. However, s. 19(1) of the Highway Traffic Act clearly states that s.16 applies despite the Code. Accordingly, pursuant to s. 47(2) of the Code, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to determine whether the provisions in s. 16 of the Highway Traffic Act requiring drivers aged 80 years and over to successfully complete certain examinations in order to drive contravene the Code.
7The Application is therefore dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of February, 2009.
“Signed By”
__________________________________
Sheri D. Price
Vice-chair