I'm curious, Chris. Which Charter rights do you think are being trampled by refusing a high school dropout a driver's license? They still have all of their fundamental, democratic, mobility and legal rights as specified in Part 1 of the Charter.

There may be some hope of success in challenging it as cruel and unusual treatment / punishment. Let's see some studies where there is a correlation between education level and rate/severity of auto accidents.

At the end of the day, though, what will end up happening is that said dropouts will just end up driving without a license. Not unlike people who have been assigned to Facility Association due to excessive traffic infractions but can't afford the premiums. In the end it ameliorates nothing and prevents nothing.

IANAL, only a lowly 1L, but this doesn't seem too far off from the scenario in Gosselin v. Quebec. A driver's license (like welfare payments) is a benefit, and a government may have very compelling reasons for denying or reducing the availability of that benefit as the stick half of a carrot-and-stick approach to a youth-specific social problem. Even if the Ontario law were to be found infringing on other grounds, I'd put good money on it being saved at section 1.

Truancy court? That's umm.. something I was threatened with back when I was attending high school 25 years ago and skipped so many classes.

But, I guess no one knew where this "truancy court" was - never ended up going even though I still skipped classes.

I think it's like Santa Claus. Something that silly adults talk about and pretend exists when they've got nothing better to say to respond to the logic of an 18 year old that says, "Man, I'm bored, my teachers suck, and I want to go out and make some money."

Truancy court? That's umm.. something I was threatened with back when I was attending high school 25 years ago and skipped so many classes.

But, I guess no one knew where this "truancy court" was - never ended up going even though I still skipped classes.

I think it's like Santa Claus. Something that silly adults talk about and pretend exists when they've got nothing better to say to respond to the logic of an 16 year old that says, "Man, I'm bored, my teachers suck, and I want to go out and make some money."

Ooops.. the first comment should not have been posted.. tried to click the "stop" icon after submitting.. should be 16 year old, not 18 year old.

"...tried to click the 'stop' icon after submitting..."

No - at that point, "clicking" on anything won't help: you actually have to crawl down the wire to get the message back!

I agree with the 1L ( keep this up Denton and the gold medal and Supreme Court articles are in the bag) { although a DL has been held to be a privilege not a benefit }
.
I'm also curious , like Taylor, which right might be infringed and agree with him about the success the law might have.

Wrt the "Truancy Court" as far as I can tell there is no such thing in a formal sense however Ontario and New Brunswick are unique in that their Education Acts establish an offence of truancy. I suppose when a child is before a judge in the Provincial Court Youth Division hearing a case under s. 30(5) of the Act it could be called a "truancy court".

Here's the section as it stood up to this week:

Education Act

30 (5) A child who is required by law to attend school and who refuses to attend or who is habitually absent from school is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to the penalties under Part VI of the Provincial Offences Act and subsection 266 (2) of this Act applies in any proceeding under this section. 1997, c. 31, s. 12 (2).

The new law raises the compulsory attendance to age to 18 from 16. The above section is slightly reworded and reformatted with the following new section:

(5.1) In addition to any other penalty it imposes on convicting a person of an offence under subsection (5), a court may order that the person's driver's licence be suspended and for that purpose the following apply:

1. The order shall specify a date on which the suspension ends, which shall be no later than the date on which the person is no longer required to attend school under section 21.

2. Once the suspension ends, the person may apply for the reinstatement of his or her licence to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles appointed under the Highway Traffic Act.

Numerous decisions have affirmed that driving is not a Charter right but a privilege*** A privilege is a right, advantage or immunity granted to a particular person or group. The state has every right to limit its grants of privileges to those particular persons who are in compliance with the laws. Suspensions are used as a penalty or enforcement mechanism in several sections of the Criminal Code and various provincial legislation- not all of which are directly related to driving offences ( e.g. enforcement against "deadbeat" parents / payment of outstanding fines, taxes or judgments ). There doesn't seem to be anything unusual about this new section that would make it unconstitutional .

***see this case and in partic para. 16 for a list of cases :
http://www.canlii.org/ab/cas/abca/2003/2003abca112.html