this is actually a great example of science defeating "common sense", and i'm happy to see it for what it is.

i'll admit that i'm a little bit skeptical that this person could pass the test, and would expect the end outcome of this to be that this person will be unable to return to work. however, you can't just assume a priori that a person with one really good eye is less capable of driving a vehicle than a person with two average eyes. you have to perform the experiment, because you might actually be wrong.

it is certainly true, for example, that a one-eyed person is likely to have issues with stereoscopic vision, and consequently is likely to be at risk of accident in their blind spot. however, it is also true that individuals with two eyes may have issues with stereoscopic vision for some other reasons, and in either case the veracity of the statement has to be demonstrated with actual testing. further, the relevance of the blind spot needs to be assessed in the context of driving a vehicle like a bus.

i do wonder if there may be some kind of easily fittable device that could act as a false eye, in context. i presume she probably has a glass eye. so, it would be easy enough to wire the data in, in principle, depending on how badly damaged the nerves are in the region connecting the eye to the brain.

but, it needs to be the testing that determines the fitness of the driver in the end, not assumptions about their ability based on physical characteristics. the common sense mafia will no doubt scoff, but the ruling is really quite correct in it's deference to empiricism over deduction.

https://toronto.ctvnews.ca/one-eyed-bus-driver-wins-discrimination-case-judge-nixes-ontario-licence-rule-1.5036487