Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Between:
George Morrison Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation Respondent
Decision
Adjudicator: Sheri D. Price Date: November 30, 2012 Citation: 2012 HRTO 2247 Indexed as: Morrison v. Ontario (Transportation)
Written Submissions
George Morrison, Applicant Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation, Respondent David Milner, Counsel
Introduction
1In this Application, filed under s.34 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”), the applicant alleges that the respondent discriminated against him with respect to services because of age. Specifically, the applicant contends that the respondent discriminated against him in December 2010 when it renewed his driver’s licence for a period of only one year, up to the date of his 65th birthday, instead of what he maintains is the prescribed five-year renewal period, solely because of the applicant’s age at the time of renewal.
2The respondent agrees that, in December 2010, the applicant’s licence was renewed only up to the date of the applicant’s 65th birthday because of the applicant’s age at the time of renewal. However, the respondent submits that this is not prohibited by the Code.
3Specifically, the respondent submits that s.16(d) and (e) of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, authorize the respondent to require drivers aged 65 and over who hold the type of driver’s licence held by the applicant to successfully complete certain tests every year in order to maintain their driver’s licences.
4The respondent submits that, based on a combined reading of s.19 of Regulation 340/94 and s. 47(2) of the Code, the requirements imposed on drivers aged 65 and over under s.16(d) and (e) of Regulation 340/94 apply despite the Code. Accordingly, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the Application, submits the respondent.
Background
5The applicant holds certain classes of driver’s licence that are required to drive larger commercial vehicles: A and C classes with a Z endorsement to drive vehicles with air brakes. Since the applicant also has an M class licence (to drive motorcycles), he has an “ACMZ” licence.
6The driver’s licence that had been issued to the applicant by the respondent in February 2006 was due to expire on February 11, 2011, the date of the applicant’s 64th birthday.
7Accordingly, the applicant went to one of the respondent’s approved testing facilities on December 24, 2010, to renew his driver’s licence before it expired. He successfully completed the required tests and his licence was renewed by the respondent.
8However, the applicant’s licence was not renewed for a five-year period, as his previous driver’s licence had been in 2006. Instead, the respondent renewed the applicant’s licence for one year, up to the date of his 65th birthday, February 11, 2012. As of that date, the applicant would be required to complete the more extensive (i.e. practical as well as written) testing provided for in s. 16(d) and (e) of Regulation 340/94 in order to maintain his licence. The applicant would also become subject to annual testing.
Law and Analysis
9Section 47(2) of the Code provides that where an Act or regulation that 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.
10Section 19 of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act states:
The examinations and qualifications required of an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence by sectio[n] … 16 … apply despite the Human Rights Code.
11Based on the clear wording of s.47(2) of the Code and s.19 of Regulation 340/94 under the Highway Traffic Act, I agree with the respondent that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine whether any examinations or qualifications required of drivers by s.16 of the Highway Traffic Act contravene the Code: Catherine v. Ontario (Transportation), 2009 HRTO 140. See also Daoust v. Ontario (Transportation), 2010 HRTO 1725; Gordon v. Ontario (Transportation), 2010 HRTO 1025.
12The question then becomes whether the examinations and/or qualifications required by the respondent of the applicant in this case were required by s.16 of Regulation 340/94.
13The relevant provisions of s. 16 of Regulation 340/94 are as follows:
- The Minister may require that,
(c.1) any holder of a Class A, B, C, E or F driver’s licence who has