Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
2012-07-04
FILE:
7446/MED
CASE NAME:
7446 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 V
ehicles Pursuant to Section 47(1) of that Act - to Suspend a Licence
Applicant
Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Dr. David Borenstein, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
Self-Represented
For the Respondent:
Mr. Kyle Biel
Heard in Toronto
June 26, 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 March 30th, 2012, the Applicant was brought to a large Emergency Department (“ED”) by police, and seen by Dr. A.S. This physician completed a Ministry of Transport Medical Condition report that stated: The Applicant suffers from “mental or emotional illness – unstable” and “1st visit for paranoid delusion, aggressive. Brought to ER by police after several unsubstantiated assault claims. Seen by psychiatrist and discharged.”
On May 14th, the MOT sent the Applicant a letter stating that her driver’s licence was to be suspended. The MOT asked for a detailed list of items to be completed and sent to them, in order to review the case.
On June 1, 2012, the Applicant’s family physician, Dr. W. wrote a letter to the MOT with an attached copy of the patient’s ED record and crisis team assessment. He stated; “I do not believe that these reports support that her driving capacity is restricted based upon any of the information/findings. She is taking no medications at this time. Please reinstate her driver’s license.”
The ED record indicated the Applicant suffers from paranoid delusions. She believes that cuts to her fingers and toes are a result of attacks by unknown persons. The assessment completed by the crisis team stated that the Applicant had visited the police several times for this complaint and that these beliefs started in 2009. It also states that she is not suicidal or homicidal and has no hallucinations. Blood work drawn in the ED on March 30th, including a toxicological screen, were unremarkable.
The mental heath team assessment performed in hospital was quite detailed. Of note, are the following remarks:
“Patient states that for past two years she has been persistently sodomized after some kind of chemicals, gas are being applied – so that she is unable to recognize her assailants…. Recently it started happening on school grounds…”
Under the heading “Life Events and Stressors,” the Applicant denied being a victim of a crime or abuse/assault including sexual, physical or emotional.
Upon consultation with a psychiatrist during her ED visit, the Applicant was deemed “not certifiable.”
On June 5th, 2012, the Applicant wrote a letter to the Licence Appeal Tribunal. She stated she had been taken against her will to the hospital after “I filed a report with the 22nd division about sexual abuse and bodily harm administered by unknown people after I am being incapacitated by some substance.” She also claims assault by the police while they brought her to the ED, for which she later filed a police report.
Upon receipt of the information, the MOT wrote to the Applicant on June 18, 2012 confirming the suspension of the Applicant’s driver’s license.
The final submission of evidence is the Applicant’s driving record which shows no convictions or actions prior to the medical suspension.
The Applicant’s argument:
The Applicant appeared to be very preoccupied with proving her claims of assault. It seemed apparent that she felt the suspension of her driver’s licence was punitive in nature. Her speech was rapid and ideas circumferential. She was reminded several times in Chambers that the purpose of this hearing was not to find the root of her belief process or even challenge its validity, but to determine her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. She argued that she was unfairly brought to the ED. She feels that she is trying to find answers to her attacks and that people are unfairly judging her as ‘crazy’ or delusional. She states she is a nice person and has never been aggressive. She is a respected English teacher at two colleges. She submitted as evidence a two-page document from a place called Viaguard, which showed cuts were on her fingers. This was dated January 5, 2012, however no author’s name was present. The Registrar did not challenge this submission. The Applicant states this is proof of her assault. She also relies heavily of Dr. W’s submission which states all blood work is negative and that this doctor has known her for 12 years and is best suited to make a decision as to her capacity to drive. She alluded to other tests that had been performed. When asked for clarification, she listed various gastroenterology tests.
The Registrar’s argument:
The representative for the Registrar presented the documentation listed in the facts above. Of particular note is that the episodes of assault seem to be happening more frequently (ie. now at school) than in the past, and that the Applicant appears to have no insight into her delusions. She is having periods of incapacity during which these events occur. Dr. W’s letter does not mention anything about her claims of abuse or include a medical appeal form. The Applicant has essentially provided the MOT with none of the information they had originally requested. It is the Registrar’s belief that the Applicant suffers from a condition that can impair her judgement and ability to operate a motor vehicle.
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 issue at hand is whether or not the Applicant suffers from a disability that will interfere with her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. This includes two issues.
The Applicant’s belief that she is being attacked: Although, there is no proof that this is happening, the validity of these beliefs in not of consequence for operation of a motor vehicle unless they interfere with safety. At this time, there is no reason to believe her current thought process would interfere with operation of a vehicle. A psychiatric assessment found her “not certifiable,” and thus competent enough to choose to leave medical care. There are many instances where one might have certain unsupported beliefs, but this does not automatically suggest an inability to drive a car.
The Applicant’s recurrent episodes of incapacity: The times at which she claims to be drugged and assaulted require further investigation. There are many reasons why one could suffer moments of incapacity or loss of consciousness. Should this occur while driving a motor vehicle, the consequence could be devastating. The aetiology of these episodes requires investigation or at least proof of neurological stability, possibly with medical specialist consultation.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Applicant to appeal the decision dated May 24, 2012 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, M.D., Presiding Member
RELEASED:July 4, 2012