British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)

Supreme court of Canada in summer

British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on disability discrimination and the duty to accommodate in the context of administrative law and human rights. This case is often cited in discussions about the balance between public safety and the rights of individuals with disabilities, particularly in the realm of driver licensing.

Background

The case arose when Kevin Grismer, a British Columbia resident, was denied a driver's license after he was diagnosed with homonymous hemianopia, a condition that results in a loss of peripheral vision. The Superintendent of Motor Vehicles of British Columbia had a policy that automatically disqualified individuals with this condition from holding a driver's license due to safety concerns. Grismer challenged this policy, arguing that it discriminated against him on the basis of his physical disability, in violation of the British Columbia Human Rights Code.

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the automatic disqualification policy constituted prima facie discrimination on the basis of physical disability. The Court then examined whether the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles had fulfilled the duty to accommodate Grismer's disability to the point of undue hardship. The Court found that the Superintendent had not adequately considered or tested individual cases to determine whether some drivers with homonymous hemianopia could drive safely. Therefore, the policy was not justified, and the Superintendent had failed to meet the duty to accommodate.

The Court's decision emphasized the importance of individual assessment over blanket exclusions and underscored the principle that administrative policies must be flexible enough to accommodate individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the administering body.

Significance

This case is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it clarified the scope of the duty to accommodate within Canadian human rights law, particularly in the context of administrative decisions. Secondly, it highlighted the need for individualized assessment in determining whether a person with a disability can meet certain standards, rather than relying on generalized assumptions or stereotypes.

The decision has had a broad impact, influencing not only the policies of driver licensing authorities across Canada but also informing broader discussions on disability rights and the duty to accommodate in various sectors.

See Also

• Disability Discrimination
• Human Rights in Canada
• Administrative Law
• Duty to Accommodate
• Supreme Court of Canada