HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO
B E T W E E N:
Joseph Beattie
Applicant
-and-
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario
as represented by the Minister of Transportation
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Paul Aterman
Indexed as: Beattie v. Ontario (Transportation)
APPEARANCES
Joseph Beattie, Applicant
Self-represented
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Transportation, Respondent
David Milner, Counsel
1This Decision explains why the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the present Application and therefore must dismiss it. The Application alleges discrimination with respect to services because of disability, marital status and receipt of public assistance contrary to the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”).
2Despite the fact that the Application indicates that marital status and receipt of public assistance are alleged grounds of discrimination, nothing in the applicant’s pleadings supports a connection to either of these grounds. The Application is about an allegation of discrimination on the ground of disability alone.
3The Application arises because on August 20, 2012, the respondent suspended the applicant’s driver’s licence. It did so because it received a report from a physician that the applicant had a medical condition that, in the opinion of the physician, meant that the applicant posed a risk to himself and others if he operated a motor vehicle. The respondent reviewed the report and took the decision to suspend the applicant’s licence.
4The respondent required the applicant to provide reports from his treating physician regarding the applicant’s fitness to drive and it reinstated his licence a year later, on September 6, 2013, because it was then satisfied that the applicant’s driving would no longer pose a safety risk.
5The Tribunal held a summary hearing by teleconference on October 3, 2014. The purpose of the summary hearing was to determine whether the Application has no reasonable prospect of success. The reason that this question arises is because the statutory power exercised by the respondent to suspend the applicant’s licence appears to be beyond the reach of the Code.
6Section 47(2) of the Code addresses situations where other legislation may have primacy over the Code. It states:
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.
7Section 19 of the Drivers’ Licences Regulation (O. Reg. 453/10) made under the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, states that certain examinations and qualifications required of driver’s license holders apply despite the Code:
- 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.
8Section 14 of the Regulation states:
- (1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s license must not,
(a) suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely; or
(b) be addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
(2) In determining whether an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence of any class meets the qualifications described in subsection (1), the Minister,
(a) may take into consideration the relevant medical standards for applicants or holders of that class of driver’s licence set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers; and
(b) may require the applicant or holder to provide evidence satisfactory to the Minister that he or she is able to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely, including,
(i) any reports of examinations under section 15, and
(ii) any additional medical information.
(3) Despite clause (2) (a) and unless otherwise provided in this Regulation, if there is a difference between a medical standard set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers and a medical standard set out in this Regulation, the Minister shall take into consideration the standard set out in this Regulation instead of the standard set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.
(4) In this section, the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers means the document entitled CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, published by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and dated March 2009, as it may be amended from time to time, that is available on the Internet through the website of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
9I explained to the applicant that the summary hearing was not about whether he felt the respondent’s decision was unfair or wrong, but rather about whether the Tribunal has any power to look into that question. I asked him to make submissions on that issue.
10The submissions from the applicant focused on the challenges of mobility in the area where the applicant lives because of the lack of public transportation, the merits of the physician’s decision to send a report to the respondent regarding the applicant’s fitness to drive and the respondent’s alleged inconsistencies in dealing with his case, as compared to the circumstances of other disabled drivers. The submissions did not address the issue of whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to address the issues that are raised by this Application.
11The decision made by the respondent to suspend the applicant’s licence was a decision about his medical fitness to drive. In Daoust v. Ontario (Transportation), 2010 HRTO 1725 at para. 12, the Tribunal explains why it has no jurisdiction to examine allegations of discrimination arising from a decision of the respondent not to issue or to suspend a licence based on a lack of medical fitness to drive.
12That reasoning applies here because the respondent’s decision is shielded from any scrutiny by the Tribunal due to the operation of s.47(2) of the Code, in combination with s.19 of the Drivers’ Licences Regulation (O. Reg. 453/10) made under the Highway Traffic Act. As a result the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to examine this Application.
order
13The Application is dismissed.
Dated at Toronto, this 6th day of October, 2014.
“Signed by”
Paul Aterman
Vice-chair