Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
FILE: 7346/MED
CASE NAME: 7346 v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Appeal under Section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a Decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles Pursuant to Section 47(1) of that Act - to Appeal a Suspended Licence
Applicant -and- Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Dr. David Borenstein
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel
Heard by teleconference: May 22, 2012
DECISION AND REASONS
This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal by the Applicant respecting a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).
FACTS
On April 12, 2010, the Ministry of Transport (“MTO”) received a Medical Condition Report from Dr. P.W. about the Applicant. He wrote that the Applicant was advised to “not drive for medical reasons.” Further, he wrote that she “reports recent history of oxycontin abuse; also exceeding prescribed doses of lorazepam, history of alcohol abuse; may pose a driving risk.” She had been the physician’s patient for one month.
On June 5th, 2010 the Ministry notified the Applicant by letter that her driver’s license was suspended. The letter described in detail what the Ministry required in order to review the case and reinstate the Applicant’s license.
The Applicant submitted a basic medical report, dated October 24, 2011, that she had obtained from the government. It was completed by her new family physician Dr. V.S. The report did not contain any of the information the Ministry had originally asked the Applicant to provide. The report did have one section dealing with mental illness to which Dr. V.S. had noted the Applicant’s lack of any form of psychiatric illness or alcohol/substance abuse.
On December 12, 2011, the MTO sent the Applicant another letter that acknowledged receipt of the above medical report. However none of the information required had been submitted and was still needed. Along with the second letter, the Applicant was also sent a full copy of the Ministry of Transport Substance Abuse Assessment to be completed by her physician.
The Applicant has not yet submitted any further information to the Ministry.
The Applicant’s Submissions:
The Applicant did not dispute the facts. However, she did submit a letter to the Tribunal in which she stated that Dr. P.W. had been mistaken and had confused her with her then boyfriend and that she only took sleeping pills as prescribed by physicians. She was upset not having her license reinstated as she has already submitted a medical report indicating no drug or substance abuse. She said she had blood work done, but this was never submitted to the Ministry. She also felt that she had been “jumping through hoops” to get the right forms to fill out, calling the Ministry many times and never being sent the correct forms and information. She reiterated this argument during the hearing. She also stated she had lost the Ministry’s Substance Abuse Assessment forms. She found them again during the teleconference hearing. She needs her driver’s licence back by September 2012 in order to take her final road test.
The Registrar’s Submissions:
The Registrar submitted the documentation referred to above to support the view that the Applicant should not have her driver’s licence reinstated. To date, she has not provided that Ministry with any further information. In regards to the Applicant’s claims, the Registrar asked the following questions:
- If Dr. P.W. had accidentally reported the wrong patient, why has he not sent a letter to the Ministry acknowledging the mistake and why has he not reported the Applicant’s then boyfriend?
- Why is there no record of the Applicant making multiple phone calls to the Ministry when all calls of such nature are documented?
- Despite her time deadline for a driving test in September 2012, the Applicant has not been pro-active in this process of getting her driver’s licence reinstated as it was suspended almost 2 years ago.
ISSUES
Should the decision of the Registrar to suspend the Applicant’s licence be confirmed, modified or set aside?
LAW
O. Reg. 340/94, Section 14 states:
(1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not,
(a) suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely; or
(b) be addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
(2) In determining whether an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence of any class meets the qualifications described in subsection (1), the Minister,
(a) may take into consideration the relevant medical standards for applicants or holders of that class of driver’s licence set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers; and
(b) may require the applicant or holder to provide evidence satisfactory to the Minister that he or she is able to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely, including,
(i) any reports of examinations under section 15, and
(ii) any additional medical information.
(3) Despite clause (2) (a) and unless otherwise provided in this Regulation, if there is a difference between a medical standard set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers and a medical standard set out in this Regulation, the Minister shall take into consideration the standard set out in this Regulation instead of the standard set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.
(4) In this section, the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers means the document entitled CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, published by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and dated March 2009, as it may be amended from time to time, that is available on the Internet through the website of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
Section 47(1) states:
Subject to section 47.1, the Registrar may suspend or cancel,
(b) a driver’s licence; …
on the grounds of,
(d) misconduct for which the holder is responsible, directly or indirectly, related to the operation or driving of a motor vehicle;
(e) conviction of the holder for an offence referred to in subsection 210(1) or (2);
(f) the Registrar having reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the holder or of a person related to the holder, and any other information that the Registrar considers relevant, that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with this Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety; or
(g) any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).
Section 50 of the Act states:
50 (1) Every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under subsection 32(5) for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32 (14) (n) or a decision of the Registrar under section 17 or 47 may appeal the decision to the Tribunal.
(2) The Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision of the Minister or the Registrar.
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO FACTS
The Applicant’s licence was initially suspended based on a Medical Condition Report from a certified medical practitioner. There is no evidence to suggest that it was made on false or incorrect information The Applicant has not provided the Ministry with any of the information requested and thus MTO has been unable to review its previous decision. The Applicant seems very preoccupied with how long it will take to get her licence reinstated yet there is no evidence that she has “jumped through hoops.” During the hearing, the representative for the Registrar ensured that the Applicant did now have the Substance Abuse Assessment Form she needs to submit and that she knows to submit current blood work and to see her family physician for both of these to be completed. Once the completed assessment is sent to the Ministry, they can then review the case based on objective medical information.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Applicant to appeal the decision dated June 15th, 2010 of the Registrar to suspend her driver’s licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act, and having considered the evidence filed with the Tribunal, and the submissions of the Registrar and of the Applicant;
IT IS THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL pursuant to the authority vested in it under section 50(2) of the Act that the decision of the Registrar be confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
David Borenstein, Presiding Member
RELEASED: May 31, 2012