Appellant Had Homonymous Hemianopia Case Study

646 Words2 Pages

1. Facts of the Case: The Appellant had Homonymous hemianopia (H.H) which means he does not have most of his left-side peripheral vision in both of his eyes. He passed all pre-requisite testing (the visual test and the 30 minute driving test) Constituted discrimination contrary to the BC Human Rights Act, S.B.C 1984, c. 22, changed to the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210 Terry Grismer was a mining truck driver. In 1984 he suffered stroke resulting H.H. The British Columbia Motor Vehicle branch cancelled his license on the grounds that his vision no longer met the standards set by the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles requirement of 120 degrees field of vision compared to the average person’s 200-220 degree field of …show more content…

Issue(s): Under s. 3 of the Human Rights Act, S.B.C 1984 c. 22, which was in place at the time Gismer’s licence was cancelled by the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. This section states: “no person shall (a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or (b) discriminate against a person or class of persons with respect to any accommodation, service, or facility customarily available to the public, because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability… (s. 3 of the Human Rights Act, S.B.C 1984 c. 22). Grismer was denied his license based on his physical disability. Grismer was denied his license because he did not meet the 120 degree field of view requirement even though he passed the visibility test and 30 minute driving test. The argument made for his denial of licensing was based on reasonable highway safety. The Superintendent was not looking for absolute safety because that is impossible to achieve, rather, he was looking for reasonable safety, even though he was able to drive safely with his disability, which he proved during his …show more content…

This makes it impossible to test Grismer on his ability to react to dangerous driving situations. 3. Ratio Dicidendi: Judge Williamson J., dismissed the petition for judicial review on the grounds that the Member made no error in interpreting and apply the bona fide and reasonable justification defense. Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal on the ground that the standard could not be justified absent more empirical data from experimental studies; no form of safe testing that can measure one’s ability to deal with unexpected traffic situations (B.C. (Superint. Of mot. Veh.) v. B.C (H.R.C) p 878). 4. Court Holding: The judge allowed the appeal and restores the decision of the Member. Mr. Gismer’s estate pursued the case, the British Columbia Superintendent of Motor Vehicles and the Attorney General of British Columbia paid the appellant’s costs. 5. Analysis: This case is significant because it involves discrimination based on a physical disability as the result of a stroke. Even though Mr. Grismer passed all pre-requisite testing he was still denied a license. This is a case of someone being defined by their disability, not by their

Open Document