Licence Appeal Tribunal / Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
FILE: 9451/MED
CASE NAME: 9451 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
9451 Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Dybesh Regmi, M.D. Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard in Toronto: April 8, 2015
DECISION AND ORDER
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”).
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A brief discussion was held between Mr. Biel, the Agent for the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and the Appellant. Upon consent from the Appellant, Mr. Biel submitted a copy of the CCMTA Driver Fitness Document, a publication of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators to both the Appellant and the Tribunal. The Appellant was given the opportunity to review this document and was offered an option to call for a recess should more time be required. The Appellant reviewed the document and decided to proceed with the hearing. This document was filed as Exhibit 11.
FACTS
Mr. Biel informed the Tribunal that the Ministry received a Medical Condition Report from Dr. VS dated December 25, 2014 in which a tick box was marked for ‘Stroke/TIA or head injury with significant deficits.’ The report further indicated that the Appellant would be reassessed by a neurologist the following week.
A second Medical Condition Report, signed by the neurologist dated December 31, 2014 was received by the Ministry in which a tick box was marked for ‘Stroke/TIA or head injury with significant deficits.’ The words “Stroke” and “significant deficits” were underlined and the comment below indicated “Left Hemiparesis due to ischemic stroke (suspected) Improving. Diagnosis to confirm via investigations”
Following the receipt of these documents, on January 7, 2015, the MTO wrote to the Appellant indicating that his driving privilege would be suspended, under section 47 (1) of the Act With the letter, the Ministry also included a Cerebrovascular Diseases Traumatic Brain Injury/Tumour or other Neurological Diseases Form and instructed the Appellant to take the letter and the forms to his treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner and have them send the information to the Medical Review Section.
The Cerebrovascular Diseases Traumatic Brain Injury/Tumour or other Neurological Diseases Form dated February 3, 2015 was completed by the neurologist. Within the form, the Appellant’s primary diagnosis was identified as Stroke (CVA) with the date of onset as less than three months. The Appellant’s current status was noted as stable with ongoing symptoms that were moderate in nature. The presence of physical impairment was noted and under the comments section was described as “residual left hemiparesis with mild left finger extensor weakness and clumsiness of the left side.” Nevertheless, the specialist opined that a functional driving assessment was not required for the Appellant. Furthermore, the specialist also opined that the Appellant is right handed and uses the right side to drive a vehicle with automatic transmission.
Clinical notes from a follow up visit with the specialist dated March 10, 2015 indicate that the Appellant has spasticity of the left upper extremity and also drags his left leg while walking.
On March 5, 2015, the MTO wrote to the Appellant informing him that a satisfactory driving evaluation from a rehabilitation centre would be required to be considered for reinstatement of his license.
The Agent then referred the Tribunal to page 128 of the CCMTA document and table 4.6.2-Cerebrovascular Accident indicating the recommendations for reinstatement, which in fact, require a complete medical assessment, showing no residual effects and the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired.
Mr. Biel’s position was that most recent medical assessment indicates the presence of residual effects and the Appellant’s functional abilities necessary for driving have not been assessed. Therefore, the MTO’s position in this case is appropriate.
The Appellant presented his own case. He referred to the fact that his driving history has been excellent as evidenced by his Driver’s Record Search. He indicated that he had the stroke and was assessed at the hospital and was followed up by the neurologist. He has not had any seizures and he has had no impairment of visual acuity, visual field, and cognition. He has been compliant on all of his medications and is undergoing physiotherapy. He has returned to work, travels using public transit and utilizes a keyboard at work without any issues. He has been discharged by the neurologist to the care of his new family doctor.
The Appellant stated that all of the clinical findings noted in the form and clinical notes of the specialist have completely resolved and that his recovery has been excellent and rapid. Furthermore, the Appellant stated that the specialist, with his medical judgment, did not feel the need for him to undergo a formal functional assessment. The Appellant’s position was that his residual impairments have all resolved and that a functional assessment to ensure he has the functional abilities necessary for driving is not warranted.
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?
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
It is apparent from the review of the documents presented that the Appellant had a stroke in December 2014 and was treated by a neurologist. He has been compliant with the medications prescribed for the condition and has shown excellent recovery.
The matter before the Tribunal is to determine from the evidence submitted whether the Appellant has residual symptoms from the stroke that would affect his ability to safely drive. The evidence in this case are relevant forms, medical chart notes and statements given by parties under affirmation.
The last medical notes dated March 10, 2015 from the specialist indicate the presence residual findings as a result of the stroke. These findings were noted to be spasticity of left upper extremity and dragging of the left leg. The Appellant states that these findings are no longer present as evidenced by his ability to take public transit and complete his job duties while utilizing a computer and keyboard.
While it is certainly plausible that these findings may have resolved, as the Appellant states, the extent of their resolution cannot be clearly defined without a complete assessment by a medical practitioner. More current medical assessment by his family doctor or by the neurologist may help in identifying any relevant persistent residual symptoms.
Weighing the evidence on a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds the Appellant is 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 January 7, 2015 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 confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dybesh Regmi, M.D., Member
Released: April 14, 2015