Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2013-04-17
FILE:
7979/MED
CASE NAME:
7979 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 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, Agent
Heard in Toronto:
April 11, 2013
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
The Applicant went to see his family physician, Dr. G.L., on January 25, 2013. Instead, he saw a locum physician at his regular clinic, Dr. B.A. The Applicant was concerned about his problem alcohol consumption. Based on her discussion with the Applicant, the physician filed a section 203 Medical Condition Report with the Ministry of Transportation (MOT) citing alcohol dependence. The physician noted the “patient had a recent MVA … will go to Bellwood rehab program.”
On January 30, 2013, the Applicant received a letter confirming suspension of his driving privileges, citing alcohol dependence. The MOT stated it required confirmation of abstinence from alcohol for a period of one year, with possible reduction of this suspension time if a physician confirms successful completion of an alcohol treatment program.
The Applicant appealed the MOT decision with the LAT. He submitted a letter in which he stated that he considers himself a social drinker, of no more than 2 bottles of beer at a time, and that he has never driven under the influence. He stated his wife asked him to see his physician for alcohol consumption, as his religion prohibits this act. He wanted to appease his family. He feels his language barrier lead to a misunderstanding with Dr. B.A. He stated that his regular physician, Dr. G.L knows him better.
At the hearing, the Applicant submitted two documents. The Registrar did not object to the late disclosure. The first is a letter dated April 9, 2013 from Dr. G.L. It states the Applicant has been under her care since 2009. He did see the locum physician so he could be admitted to a rehabilitation facility. He has told his physician he has no issues with drinking and driving. He has been evaluated by two rehabilitation programs, Bellwood and Credit Valley, “but with a language barrier it has been hard to accept him.” Dr. G.L strongly recommends a 12-step program for alcohol addiction. The Applicant is waiting acceptance to this program. A urine toxicology test ordered March 2, 2013 showed no alcohol. The second letter submitted, dated April 8, 2013 from Credit Valley Hospital, confirms the Applicant has been assessed, but not treated in their rehabilitation program.
The Applicant’s driving record submitted by the Registrar shows a conviction for impaired driving in 1996. He admitted this was alcohol related.
The Applicant’s friend, Mr. A.N, accompanied him to the hearing for translation purposes. He speaks Farsi. The Registrar did not object.
The Applicant’s argument:
The Applicant maintains that he needs his licence to work and care for his family. He is the sole income earner in his family. His elderly mother also requires his driving services for transportation. He maintains this whole situation is based on a misunderstanding.
The Registrar’s argument;
The Registrar argues that two physicians, including the Applicant’s long-standing family physician are concerned about his alcohol consumption. Dr. G.L., who the Applicant maintains knows him well, recommends a 12-step program. Based on the CCMTA standards, it is reasonable under these circumstances to ask the Applicant to meet the criteria for remission or abstain from the substance for 12 months, or to obtain a favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist. Additionally, successful completion of a substance abuse rehabilitation program is part of these guidelines. The Applicant has provided none of the information requested in the initial suspension letter by the MOT. Furthermore, the two letters submitted by the Applicant are contrary to the notion that his regular family physician does not recognize an alcohol related problem. Also noted by the Registrar, is that the family physician appears to be unaware of the Applicant’s past conviction for impaired driving. When asked by the Registrar’s representative about this point, the Applicant’s only explanation for not telling the doctor was that this conviction occurred a long time ago, before he knew his family physician.
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 original section 203 form was filed by Dr. B.A. in good faith in response to concerns raised about alcohol consumption and information regarding a motor vehicle accident. The letter submitted by the Applicant from Dr. G.L. does not refute a problem with alcohol consumption. Thus the concerns of the MOT are justified, and require follow-up. Although the Tribunal has great sympathy for the Applicant’s need to drive a car, he has not offered any information to counter the concerns of the MOT. He was given, along with his translator to help, several opportunities at the hearing to offer additional evidence or testimony.
At this time, the Registrar has successfully proved, on a balance of probabilities, concerns about the Applicant’s dependence on alcohol and its likely interference with the Applicant’s ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. He does have one past conviction for driving under the influence. The Tribunal, in this case, must give weight to the two impartial physician’s judgements, one of whom, Dr. G.L., has known him for several years and in the fact that the Applicant clearly thought there was enough of a problem to initially seek treatment and rehabilitation services for alcohol abuse.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Applicant to appeal the decision dated January 30, 2013 of the Registrar to suspend his 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 confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
David Borenstein, Presiding Member
RELEASED: April 17, 2013