Licence Appeal Tribunal / Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
FILE: 9707/MED
CASE NAME: 9707 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
9707 Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Kevin Flynn, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard in Toronto: August 25, 2015
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”).
OVERVIEW
The Appellant submits that the psychiatrist who reported to the Registrar did not have sufficient evidence to support the diagnosis of schizophrenia. The information contained in the Medical Condition Report led to the suspension of his driving privilege.
In absence of an up-to-date medical assessment that confirms stability of his condition and recommendation for reinstatement, the Tribunal confirms the suspension.
RESPONDENT’S EVIDENCE
The Appellant had an earlier suspension of his driving privilege following a motor vehicle collision on November 2, 1994, that was suspected to be due to drowsiness after an all night study session. His licence was reinstated on July 4, 1995, following a supportive letter by his physician that stated he had been examined and no evidence was found that he suffered from a condition that would impair his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.
On May 22, 2015, an unsolicited Medical Condition Report was completed in compliance with section 203 of the Act, by a psychiatrist, Dr. T., at a community hospital.
This report was based on an examination on May 21, 2015, and following admission to hospital for three weeks, originally on a Form One.
The condition reported was:
Mental or Emotional Illness-Unstable
The patient is aware of this report.
The Registrar informed the Appellant on June 29, 2015, that his driving privilege was suspended.
In order to be considered for reinstatement he was requested to take the letter of suspension to his treating physician and have a Mental Health Assessment form completed and forwarded to the Medical Review Section.
The Mental Health Assessment was not completed. Mr. Biel advised the Appellant that the Mental Health Assessment could be completed by a family physician, psychiatrist or nurse practitioner.
APPELLANT’S EVIDENCE
The Appellant stated that on May 21, 2015, police attended at his apartment in response to a complaint. He was arrested and handcuffed. When being placed in the police vehicle, he asked who the complainant was and was told that a neighbour called regarding a loud argument in his apartment which he shared with his common-law spouse.
He told the Tribunal that a similar incident occurred a year before.
On both occasions, he was taken to the Emergency Room at the local hospital. He was admitted under a Form One and was seen by a psychiatrist and remained in the hospital, on this occasion, for three weeks. The psychiatrist spoke to his common-law wife and to his mother.
He acknowledged that following the 2014 incident, medication was recommended but not followed through due to side effects.
He acknowledged that when driving on expressways he felt that drivers behind him were harassing him and he began to avoid driving due to fear for his safety.
He does not agree with the diagnosis of schizophrenia or a mental condition. He agreed to see a psychiatrist to help the reinstatement of his licence.
He is employed as a window cleaner.
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
Mr. Biel, for the Respondent, submitted that the Registrar was justified in issuing a suspension of the Appellant’s driving privilege upon receipt of a Medical Condition Report by a physician in compliance with section 203 of the Act.
That report stated the condition as unstable mental or emotional illness.
A Mental Health Assessment was requested and was not completed. Therefore under Ontario Regulation 340/94 (14)(a) the Registrar is justified in continuing the suspension.
The Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators, (CCMTA) Guideline 14.6.1 states that for reinstatement, the driver’s condition must be stable, and a treating physician must supports return to driving. Currently there is no requirement for six months period of stability.
The Appellant submitted that the Registrar did not refer to his 15 years clean driving record, with no demerit points and no convictions.
The Appellant submits that the physician who reported under section 203 of the Act had no evidence that he was an unsafe driver.
He stated that he will meet with a psychiatrist in September and will submit a report to the Registrar.
The issue for the Tribunal is whether the Appellant suffers from ‘any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.’ The safety concern is for the Appellant and the driving public. The evidence before the Tribunal is that there is a mental or emotional illness which is unstable. The Appellant does not agree with the diagnosis and has refused, at this point, medication. Yet, he has candidly stated that he has experienced delusions that other drivers are targeting him. Though he denies acting aggressively in response, he avoids driving when possible. That there is a likely significant impact on his ability to drive safely given this condition, which he has not accepted treatment for, is a reasonable and probable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence.
An up-to-date medical report of stability and a recommendation for reinstatement by a treating physician has not been provided. In the absence of this and weighing the evidence and submissions on a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that 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 July 6, 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
Kevin Flynn M.D., Member
Released: September 4, 2015