Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Human rights - Discriminatory practices - Discrimination on the basis of a disability - Transportation law - Motor vehicles - Driver licencing - Administrative law - Complainant had visual impairment, but qualified for Class 1 driver’s licence - Class 1 driver’s licence due to driver’s failure to meet visual acuity standards cancelled 13 years later without change in vision status, notice to complainant or individual functional driving assessment - Whether statutory decision-makers can be held liable for the good faith exercise of a discretionary statutory decision under s. 37(2)(d)(ii) of the Code - Whether statutory decision-makers can be held liable for a good faith application of the law which is ultimately found to be discretionary.

Mr. Bolster, who has 20/70 vision in both eyes, held a Class 1 licence for 13 years. During that time, he operated large trucks with skill. In April 1998, while changing employers and after the decision in British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia Council of Human Rights (1997), 100 B.C.A.C. 129, was released, his eyes were examined by a doctor who reported Mr. Bolster’s vision status, which had not changed since he received his licence, to the Superintendent. The doctor had no concern with Mr. Bolster’s ability to drive but suggested a driving test. The Superintendent cancelled Mr. Bolster’s licence without notice and Mr. Bolster lost his contract. With the support of his doctors, Mr. Bolster objected. The Superintendent had him examined by an independent medical panel and the cancellation was confirmed. On appeal, Mr. Bolster’s Class 5 licence was reinstated with a night driving restriction which was eventually removed. In December 1999, British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v. British Columbia Council of Human Rights, [1999] 3 S.C.R. 868, was decided. Nonetheless, Mr. Bolster’s attempts to have his Class 1 or 3 license reinstated continued to be unsuccessful. In January 2003, he filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of disability under the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210. In March 2003, he was offered an individual functional driving assessment and his Class 1 licence was reinstated with the restrictions that had been in place when it was cancelled.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Bolster should have been given an individual functional driving assessment. It awarded him $141,939.38 in compensation for lost wages, $5,000 for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect, and an amount to offset tax liability. The Province was denied judicial review, and its appeal was dismissed.