Licence Appeal Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 8540/MED
CASE NAME: 8540 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
8540 Applicant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Garry Fisher, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel Agent
Heard in Toronto: January 28, 2014
DECISION AND REASONS
This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “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”).
The Applicant attended the hearing, accompanied by his wife.
FACTS
Under Section 203 of the Highway Traffic Act requirements, Dr. C.H. notified the MTO on October 10, 2013, that the Applicant was “drug dependent.”
He further noted: “(The Applicant) is presenting again today for treatment. With treatment he has stabilized in the past and I would anticipate that he will stabilize fairly quickly after resuming treatment. Once his problem is again stabilized his risk to road safety will be much reduced.”
The MTO notified the Applicant on October 18, 2013, that his driver’s licence was suspended.
On November 21, 2013, Dr. C.H., a substance abuse expert, wrote the Deputy Registrar of the MTO, outlining the situation and the treatment options and plans and urged strongly that the Applicant’s driver licence be reinstated immediately.
The Applicant is a 52 year old self-employed contractor who has suffered chronic pain for many years. In 2006 he had a back operation and was prescribed opiates for post-operative pain. Follow-up of his need for medication wasn’t (apparently) closely monitored and the Applicant remained on opiates for three years. After that prescriptions weren’t forthcoming and he turned to buying his drugs (opiates), on the street.
He knew he needed help, applied, and waited six months to get into the CAMH treatment facility in Sept 2011.
Dr C.H. treated him and considered him “stable” until they parted in November 2012. Treatment then, as now, employed buprenorphine/aloxone (Suboxone) to moderate and stabilize behaviour.
He had a flair-up of severe back pain in January 2013, and went to his local ER for help. The ER doctor took him off his Suboxone and ordered opiates. In retrospect, that was clearly inappropriate and led to a resumption of opiate dependence.
Dr. C.H. wrote again to the MTO Deputy Registrar on January 2, 2014. The Substance Abuse Assessment Forms had earlier been completed and, as has been pointed out by the Respondent, the criteria for addiction to drugs is clear. On the list of seven criteria he gets six of seven. The rule of thumb is – three of seven equals addiction. Neither the Applicant nor his treating medical addiction specialist questions the fact of addiction.
Dr C.H. again asserted that his patient was stabilized (on Suboxone). He further wrote “I hope that you will strongly consider immediately reinstating (the Applicant’s) driver’s licence”.
CCMTA Standards 15.6.3 – All drivers eligible for a licence if: -Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendations from an addictions specialist..
ISSUES
Should the decision of the Registrar to suspend the Applicant’s licence be confirmed, modified or set aside?
Is the Applicant 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
O. Reg. 340/94, Section 14 states:
(1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not,
(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.
Further, 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..
Clearly, the Applicant is addicted to opiates. He agrees, his wife agrees, and his treating physician documents the problem.
The Respondent accurately notes that it is a mere 73 days of opiate-free treatment on appropriate medication. Re-instatement of his driver licence at this time pushes the guidelines a bit but nevertheless has been recommended by the addiction specialist.
The Applicant became caught in a web of miscommunication beginning at least with a back operation in November 2006. The surgeon started him on a powerful addicting opiate (like oxycodone), no one followed up. Not the surgeon, the GP or the pharmacist, until three years down the road. Then someone noticed and cut him off abruptly. By then, the damage has been done.
It took a long wait to get into the CAMH clinic, but once in to the appropriate treatment in September 2011, the Applicant stayed with the plan until November 2012. He is now back in treatment and doing well.
It was a surprise to the Applicant to find his licence suspended. The Applicant wonders why his licence was suspended on this occasion and not earlier. The Tribunal found it curious as well.
The economic impact on this man, an independent contractor, is profound.
The Tribunal respects the judgement of Dr C.H. when he states emphatically that the man is safe to drive.
Weighing the evidence on a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds the Applicant 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 Applicant to appeal the decision, effective October 18, 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 be set aside.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Garry Fisher M.D., Member
Released: January 31, 2014