Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2015-04-28
FILE:
9473/MED
CASE NAME:
9473 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
Appellant
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 M. Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
April 21, 2015
REASONS FOR 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”).
FACTS
The Appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended on January 3, 2015, based on a Medical Condition Report filed under section 203 of the Act dated December 19, 2014. The report was signed by Dr. L.N., an Emergency Room (“E.R.”) physician. The condition reported was “Alcohol Dependence”. There were no other details provided on the Medical Condition Report.
The Appellant submitted a two line note from Dr. G.R., dated February 3, 2015, which states that the Appellant is “mentally and physically fit to attend detox”. There is also a handwritten note on this doctor’s note that she “Attended Feb. 4th to the 9 of Feb”.
The Registrar requested that the Medical Review Section be sent information from a medical source that would deal with the question of possible alcohol dependence. On December 24, 2014, and again on April 1, 2015, Substance Use Assessment forms were sent to the Appellant.
No forms have been filed to date, and no medical reports have been forthcoming.
The Tribunal questioned why the Appellant had gone to the E.R. The Appellant stated that she wanted “a shot of Gravol” and that she was at the hospital for three hours, but had not been seen by the doctor during that time. She called a cab and left. She thinks the doctor was “mad at her” for leaving.
The Registrar’s Agent asked the Appellant about her alcohol drinking history. She stated that she had not had anything to drink on the morning of the hearing, but had consumed a “mickey” (375 ml) the previous night. She didn’t feel that to be unusual.
The Appellant provided a “Certificate of Completion” of a 35 day substance misuse treatment program, dated May 16, 2014.
She is age 57 and retired from the military service which she described as “hard working” and “hard drinking”. Some of the numbers she provided in her testimony didn’t add up. She recalled 25 years in the service and that she retired at age 40.
She noted that she did not drink and drive, but took a cab when she was drinking.
The Registrar’s Agent reminded the Appellant several times that her licence was suspended for medical reasons, for possible alcohol dependence.
He referred the Tribunal to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA”) medical standards, page 230, which addresses the issue of Substance Abuse or Dependence.
ISSUES
Should the decision of the Registrar to suspend the Appellant’s licence be confirmed, modified or set aside?
In particular:
Is the Appellant addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her 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:
- (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 evidence put before the Tribunal at this hearing supports the conclusion that the Appellant does have an addiction to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Based on an encounter with the Appellant, the E.R. physician ticked two boxes on the Medical Condition Report – “Alcohol Dependence” and the “Patient is aware of this report”.
The Appellant was in the E.R. department for three hours by her estimate; a chart was undoubtedly required. That chart was not available to the Tribunal at this hearing. The Appellant submitted a hand written note stating “It was not alcohol that caused my ziesure (sic). But low low magnesium”. The Appellant’s E.R. record might have shed some light on the medical situation that gave rise to that visit to the E.R. The testimony that she attended the E.R. to get a “shot of Gravol” does not assist in that regard.
It was the opinion of the E.R. doctor, Dr. L.N., that the Appellant is likely alcohol dependent. The Tribunal has no evidence before it to dispute that assessment. The Appellant candidly stated that her time in the military service was a “hard drinking” time. While she did complete a treatment program in May 2014, and appears to have attended a “detox” program for five days in February 2015, her drinking has continued. By her own admission, she drank a “mickey” the night before the hearing (which she did not think unusual), though noted that she had not had anything to drink the morning of the hearing, which started at 9:30 a.m.
The Appellant was advised that she needs to submit the information requested by the Registrar to the MTO, with the help of her family doctor or nurse practitioner, if she hopes to have her driver’s licence reinstated.
Weighing the evidence on a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant is suffering from a condition which is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Appellant to appeal the Registrar’s decision, effective January 3, 2015, to suspend her 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
Garry Fisher, M.D., Member
Released: April 28, 2015