Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 9341/MED
CASE NAME: 9341 v. Minister of Transportation
Appeal under Section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a Decision of the Minister of Transportation pursuant to Section 32(5)(b)(i) - to Change the Class or Classes of Motor Vehicles in Respect of Which the Licence was Issued
Appellant
Appellant
-and-
Minister of Transportation
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Kevin Flynn, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle M. Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference: February 25, 2015
DECISION AND REASONS
This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) by the Appellant respecting a decision of the Minister of Transportation (the “Respondent”) pursuant to Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).
OVERVIEW
This hearing is an appeal by the Appellant from a Notice of Change of Class of licence from Class ‘AZ’ to Class ‘G’ issued by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.
The main basis for the downgrade was a medical report of a reduced level of consciousness resulting from previous Arteriovenous Malformation surgery to the brain.
The Appellant claims that the cause for the single episode was identified as non-epileptic and successfully treated.
The main issues are whether the Registrar had reasonable grounds for issuing a change to the class of licence and whether the Appellant suffers from a physical disability to an extent that he should no longer be entitled to exercise the privilege of a Class ‘AZ’ licence.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal finds that this appeal should be granted, and the Tribunal sets aside the change of class of motor vehicle licence to drive.
FACTS
The Respondent’s Evidence
The Registrar received a periodic medical report from a family physician dated August 13, 2013 that reported an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in the left side of the brain. This resulted in surgery in November 2012.
Further surgery was performed in September 2013 for removal of a brain aneurysm.
His neurosurgeon cleared him to drive and he was approved for a commercial licence in November 2013.
On May 20, 2014, the Ministry was notified by an emergency room physician of a first seizure.
The Appellant was informed on June 13, 2014, that his driving privilege was suspended under section 47(1) of the Act due to the report of seizure.
An assessment on an epilepsy and seizures form was completed on November 11, 2014, by Dr. B., neurosurgeon.
In summary, this assessment stated as follows:
- The seizure reported was the Appellant’s first seizure and was classified as Generalised Tonic Clonic or Grand Mal.
- Electroencephalogram (EEG) did not show epileptiform activity but an abnormality was identified by CT scan in an epileptogenic area of the brain.
- The abnormality was located in the area of previous surgery for AVM and has been treated both surgically and medically.
- His medical treatment consists of an anti-convulsant, Dilantin 300 mg daily.
- The single episode of seizure was more than six months prior to the assessment and was due to scarring from the surgery in 2012.
- The condition of the Appellant has remained stable for over six months, with no recurrence, and he has remained compliant in taking his medication.
- The provoking factor has been stabilized and resolved and the Appellant has appropriate insight of his condition and the impact on his functional ability to drive.
- The Appellant was stated to have no other medical condition that would impact on his ability to drive safely.
The specialist’s report to the Appellant’s family physician on November 18, 2014, included the above summary and also stated that due to the blood level of Dilantin below the therapeutic level, the dose of Dilantin had been increased by 30 mg daily. This brought the blood level to the normal therapeutic range.
The specialist also stated:
“Overall, the patient has not had any repeat events…
…I do not suspect that he will have any repeat events as he is stable on his current dosage…
…his livelihood as a truck driver does depend on his licence and I do believe that he is fit to drive. He does have a Class AZ licence for truck driving, which may have more stringent criteria for obtaining the licence back, but overall, I believe he will do quite well.”
A copy of the letter was forwarded to the Ministry.
In December 2014, the Registrar informed the Appellant that he was approved for a Class ‘G’ licence.
In order to be considered for a commercial licence he was required to file a report from his physician or surgeon that he has remained seizure free for a period of five years with or without medication.
The Appellant’s Evidence
The Appellant stated that on May 20, 2014, he arrived home from work around 3 p.m. He had just bought a new pick-up truck and was so excited that he went to tell his next door neighbour the