Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 8810/MED
CASE NAME: 8810 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
8810 Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Garry Fisher, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference: June 3, 2014
DECISION AND REASONS
This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") by the Appellant 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 driver's licence of the Appellant was suspended on October 2, 2013, based on notification by Dr. D.K., an ER physician in a regional hospital. The Appellant had been transported to the ER from his home on September 29, 2013 where he had been seen regarding a tonic-clonic seizure. It was an isolated event – i.e. –no other known seizures.
Under section 203 of the Highway Traffic Act, a form was submitted to the MTO. The box "Seizure(s)- Cerebral" was checked.
Referral was made to Dr R.G. (neurology) He initially saw the Appellant on October 7, 2013, and then followed up on December 4, 2013. Between those dates, investigation included a sleep-deprived EEG and a MRI of the brain. Both were normal. Dr. R.G.'s note is very thorough and describes the circumstances of the seizure. It also delineates the Appellant's past and present health and that led to the Appellant's acknowledged alcohol addiction. The neurologist noted that the Appellant was prescribed a group of drugs – iamotrigine, Paxil, meloxicam, and Seroquel, - all to counteract anxiety and depression.
Dr R.G. noted that from the standpoint of "seizures", the Appellant should get his driver's licence returned. He couldn't comment on the history of alcohol addiction, however, and left that to the Appellant's family doctor.
Dr. A.J. has been the Appellant's family doctor since 2011. She helped him fill out the alcohol addiction forms of the MOT and when it came to the DSM IV criteria, she filled it for the Appellant and checked all seven boxes.
Had the Appellant filled out the form, he would have disagreed with at least three of the seven. But he doesn't dispute that he is an alcoholic.
Ten years ago, he recognized the problem and checked in to a private rehab centre on two occasions over a year. From that point, he started to regularly attend AA and to the present goes weekly. In the ten year period, he has slipped from abstinence three times: four and half years ago, early September 2013 for a day and in March 2014, again, for a day due to a "family" disturbance.
The Agent for the MTO was clear that the seizure issue was not the problem keeping the Ministry from withholding his driver licence. The issue of alcohol addiction had to be addressed and clarified.
ISSUES
Should the decision of the Registrar to suspend the Appellant's licence be confirmed, modified or set aside?
In particular:
Does the Appellant suffer from a mental, emotional, nervous or physical disability likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
or
Is the Appellant addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
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.
Section 47(1) of the Act gives the Registrar the power to suspend or cancel a driver's licence on the ground(s) set out in section 14 (1) of the Regulation set out above.
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 Appellant is addicted to alcohol. He is forthright in acknowledging the addiction. He has had three very brief episodes of alcohol consumption in a ten year period. His liver function tests are normal.
The Appellant is suffering the problems financially of being unable to work at his sales job without the ability to drive. The Tribunal sympathizes with his plight – especially since he has been treated by various doctors for a ten year period – with no previous notifications to the MTO of his addiction. It was the Appellant's seizure that led to the notification to the ministry. That issue has been investigated and medication prescribed. The neurologist supports reinstatement of his licence.
Weighing the evidence on a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds the Appellant is not suffering from a condition which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Appellant to appeal the decision effective October 3, 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 Appellant;
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 set aside.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Garry Fisher, M.D., Member
Released: June 6 2014