Edmund Rockburne v. Ontario (Transportation), 2013 HRTO 1224

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Edmund Rockburne

Applicant

-and-

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Paul Aterman

Date: July 12, 2013

Citation: 2013 HRTO 1224

Indexed as: Rockburne v. Ontario (Transportation)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Edmund Rockburne, Applicant

Self-represented

Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation, Respondent

David Milner, Counsel

1This Application alleges discrimination with respect to the provision of services on the ground of age contrary to s.1 of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant is over the age of 80 and he alleges that O. Reg. 340/94 (Driver's Licences), made pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990 c.H.8 (the “Act”), is discriminatory because this regulation requires drivers aged 80 and over to be tested periodically in order to retain a licence to drive.

2In its Response the respondent requests dismissal of the Application on the grounds that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the issues that the applicant maintains are in violation of the Code. It relies on the Tribunal’s decisions in Catherine v Ontario, 2009 HRTO 140; Gordon v. Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1025; Daoust v. Ontario, 2010 HRTO 1725 and Morrison v. Ontario, 2012 HRTO 2247.

3In Interim Decision 2013 HRTO 989 the applicant was requested to provide his submissions on the jurisdictional issue. In making those submissions the applicant does not argue that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. Rather, he expresses his disagreement with the fact that the Legislature has enacted s.47(2) of the Code, which reads:

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.

4The applicant goes on to argue that the testing requirement for drivers aged 80 and over in the Act is not supported by a rational basis in the form of statistical evidence that elderly drivers pose a greater risk to public safety than drivers in other age groups whom the Act does not subject to mandatory testing.

5The relevant regulation in this case specifically provides that it applies despite the provisions of the Code. Section 19 of Regulation 340/94 under the Act states:

The examinations and qualifications required of an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence by sections 14, 16 and 17, subsection 18 (1), clause 18 (2) (a), subsection 18 (3) and sections 21.1 and 21.2 apply despite the Human Rights Code.

6In this case clause 16(a) of the regulation enables the respondent to require testing of drivers aged 80 and over every two years.

7As is noted in Catherine and the other decisions cited above, the combined effect of the language of s.47(2) of the Code and s.19 of Regulation 340/94 under the Act is to remove the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over allegations that the licensing provisions under the Act discriminate on Code-prohibited grounds. There is no ambiguity in how these provisions operate together. Applying these provisions to this Application, I conclude that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the applicant’s allegations. For these reasons his Application is dismissed.

order

8This Application is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.