29:
225:(H.H.), a visual disability that reduces the scope of peripheral vision. After the stroke the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles cancelled his driver's licence on the grounds that his condition made him incapable of meeting the minimum standard for peripheral vision required when driving. This rule applied to all people who suffered from H.H.
259:
was rationally connected to the issuing of licences. The practice was also found to be in good faith. The standard failed the third step as it was not reasonably necessary to accomplish the goal. Furthermore, the
Superintendent failed to show that any accommodation such as allowing individual testing would constitute
258:
In considering
Grismer's situation, McLachlin found that there was prima facie discrimination as his licence was cancelled on the basis of a disability. She then applied the Meiorin test and found that the discrimination was not justifiable. The goal of the prohibition was to protect the public which
228:
Grismer brought a complaint to the Human Rights
Commission for discrimination against the disabled. The Human Rights Tribunal found that the Superintendent directly discriminated and ordered a reassessment of his (Grismer's) visual abilities. A judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dismissed
212:
decision on human rights law. The Court held that the
British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles was in violation of the provincial Human Rights Code for cancelling the driver's licence of Terry Grismer because he had a visual disability.
232:
Grismer's estate appealed to the
Supreme Court of Canada. The issue before the Court was whether the complete prohibition against people with H.H. from driving was a reasonable standard under the requirements established in the
54:
Terry
Grismer (Estate) v. The British Columbia Council of Human Rights (Member Designate Tom Patch) and The British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia
189:
104:
327:
322:
312:
255:
applied not just in the employment context but to all circumstances of discrimination where accommodation may be available.
317:
249:
332:
82:
281:
342:
337:
294:
130:
245:
McLachlin, writing for a unanimous Court, found that the
Superintendent discriminated against Grismer.
229:
the
Superintendent's petition for judicial review but the Court of Appeal set aside that decision.
277:
110:
applies to all types of discrimination, including discrimination outside of the employment context.
221:
Terry
Grismer was a mining truck driver who, after suffering from a stroke in 1984, suffered from
273:
209:
34:
201:
British
Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)
22:
British Columbia (Superintendent of Motor Vehicles) v British Columbia (Council of Human Rights)
222:
8:
138:
150:
60:
28:
178:
Lamer C.J. and Arbour J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
134:
142:
260:
306:
158:
146:
123:
234:
248:
McLachlin found that the Meiorin test for determining if a standard is a
190:
British Columbia (Public Service Employee Relations Commission) v. BCGSEU
154:
304:
240:
305:
295:SCC Case Information - Docket 26481
13:
14:
354:
328:Anti-discrimination law in Canada
266:
83:British Columbia Court of Appeal
81:Judgment against Grismer in the
27:
323:Canadian civil rights case law
288:
204:, 3 S.C.R. 868, known as the
1:
313:Supreme Court of Canada cases
216:
16:Supreme Court of Canada case
7:
45:Judgment: December 16, 1999
10:
359:
43:Hearing: October 13, 1999
318:1999 in Canadian case law
187:
182:
177:
169:
164:
119:
114:
102:
97:
89:
77:
69:
59:
49:
42:
26:
21:
333:Disability law in Canada
253:occupational requirement
297:Supreme Court of Canada
274:Supreme Court of Canada
210:Supreme Court of Canada
35:Supreme Court of Canada
223:homonymous hemianopia
131:Claire L'Heureux-Dubé
241:Reasons of the court
170:Unanimous reasons by
343:Blindness in Canada
338:Disability case law
206:Grismer Estate case
139:Beverley McLachlin
197:
196:
151:Michel Bastarache
350:
298:
292:
135:Charles Gonthier
128:Puisne Justices:
115:Court membership
31:
19:
18:
358:
357:
353:
352:
351:
349:
348:
347:
303:
302:
301:
293:
289:
269:
243:
219:
208:, is a leading
143:Frank Iacobucci
126:
93:Appeal allowed.
44:
38:
17:
12:
11:
5:
356:
346:
345:
340:
335:
330:
325:
320:
315:
300:
299:
286:
285:
284:
268:
267:External links
265:
261:undue hardship
242:
239:
218:
215:
195:
194:
185:
184:
180:
179:
175:
174:
171:
167:
166:
162:
161:
121:Chief Justice:
117:
116:
112:
111:
100:
99:
95:
94:
91:
87:
86:
79:
75:
74:
71:
67:
66:
63:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
32:
24:
23:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
355:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
321:
319:
316:
314:
311:
310:
308:
296:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:Full text of
271:
270:
264:
262:
256:
254:
252:
246:
238:
236:
230:
226:
224:
214:
211:
207:
203:
202:
193:, 3 S.C.R. 3
192:
191:
186:
181:
176:
172:
168:
165:Reasons given
163:
160:
159:Louise Arbour
156:
152:
148:
147:John C. Major
144:
140:
136:
132:
129:
125:
124:Antonio Lamer
122:
118:
113:
109:
107:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
78:Prior history
76:
72:
68:
64:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
36:
30:
25:
20:
290:
276:decision at
257:
250:
247:
244:
235:Meiorin case
231:
227:
220:
205:
200:
199:
198:
188:
183:Laws applied
173:McLachlin J.
127:
120:
105:
65:3 S.C.R. 868
53:
33:
307:Categories
280: and
217:Background
155:Ian Binnie
70:Docket No.
251:bona fide
61:Citations
106:Meiorin
98:Holding
282:CanLII
90:Ruling
73:26481
278:LexUM
108:test
103:The
309::
263:.
237:.
157:,
153:,
149:,
145:,
141:,
137:,
133:,
85:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
