HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Pierre Ringuet Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation and Licence Appeal Tribunal Respondents
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Geneviève Debané Date: August 16, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 1583 Indexed as: Ringuet v. Ontario (Transportation)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
Her majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation, Respondent David Milner, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application under s. 34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended. The applicant alleges that the visual acuity requirements for drivers’ licenses in Ontario constitute discrimination with respect to goods, services, and facilities because of disability. He also alleges that the failure of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (“LAT”) to process his appeal constitutes discrimination. LAT, it appears, came to the conclusion that his appeal did not raise matters it had the power to decide.
Application as against LAT
2On April 26, 2012, the Tribunal issued a Cases Assessment Direction (“CAD”) which states at paragraphs 3 and 4:
However, it appears to me that the Application as against the LAT may be outside this Tribunal’s jurisdiction (power) to decide because of the principle of judicial immunity. The Tribunal has found that it does not have jurisdiction over an application against a neutral third party deciding a dispute between others when the doctrine of judicial immunity applies. See Seberras v. Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, 2012 HRTO 115.
Accordingly, the LAT need not file a Response or any submissions unless directed to do so by the Tribunal. If the applicant seeks to continue the Application against the LAT, the applicant shall deliver to the other parties and file with the Tribunal submissions within 14 days of the date of this Case Assessment Direction, outlining why he asserts that judicial immunity does not apply. Following a review of the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal will determine whether the Application should be dismissed as against LAT on the basis of judicial immunity. If the applicant fails to file submissions as directed, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as against LAT as abandoned.
3The Tribunal has received no submissions from the applicant, and I am satisfied that the applicant received a copy of the CAD. The Application as against LAT is dismissed as abandoned.
Application as against the Ministry of Transportation
4The Ministry of Transportation filed a Response in which it asserts that the Tribunal has previously found that it does not have jurisdiction over the medical fitness standards imposed by the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. The Ministry refers to the Tribunal’s decision in Gordon v. Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1025.
5In these circumstances it is appropriate that the applicant be ordered to file a Reply to the Response filed by the Ministry of Transportation and to make submissions on the jurisdictional issues raised by the Ministry.
Order
6The Tribunal Orders as follows:
a. The Application as against the respondent License Appeal Tribunal is dismissed, and the style of cause shall be amended to remove them as a respondent in any future decision;
b. The Registrar of the Tribunal will deliver the Ministry of Transportation’s Response to the applicant, together with a copy of this Interim Decision; and
c. The applicant shall have 21 days from the date of this Interim Decision to file a Reply and to make any submissions on whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the Application.
7If the applicant fails to file a Reply or submissions as directed, the Tribunal may dismiss the Application as abandoned.
8I am not seized of this matter.
Dated at Toronto, this 16th day of August, 2012.
Signed by
__________________________________
Geneviève Debané
Vice-chair