Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 9701/MED
CASE NAME: 9701 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
9701 Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: David Borenstein, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle M. Biel, Agent
Heard in Toronto: September 10, 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
In January 2010, the Appellant came to the attention of the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario ("MTO") when a Medical Condition Report was filed by an Emergency Room Physician for alcohol dependence. The Appellant had been in the Emergency Room with alcohol intoxication, tremors and increased liver function tests. His family physician, Dr. J.T., wrote a letter of support for the Appellant to have his driver's licence reinstated at that time, and after requested by the MTO, an addiction specialist also wrote a letter of support. The general feeling was that there was a diagnosis of alcohol misuse and abuse, but not dependence. Eventually, the Appellant's driver's licence was reinstated in August 2010 with an MTO follow-up one year later, which the Appellant completed and passed.
On April 16, 2015, the Appellant arrived at the office of the same family physician. He was inebriated with an open bottle of liquor. Dr. J.T. then submitted another Medical Condition Report for alcohol dependence.
Based on this report, the Appellant's driver's licence was suspended again on May 18, 2015. The family physician noted that the Appellant had daily alcohol use and drove to the clinic on April 16, 2015.
Between these two medical suspensions, there was also an administrative driver's licence suspension and a Criminal Code conviction for impaired driving in 2012. This had occurred after the Appellant went out for his wedding anniversary and drove while intoxicated from alcohol.
Dr. J.T. did complete the Substance Use Assessment form, as requested by MTO, on August 23, 2015. It stated a diagnosis of substance abuse and misuse, with abstinence for less than six months. The Appellant had two increased liver function tests in April 2015, specifically an increased Alanine transaminase (ALT) and Aspartate Aminotransferase (AST). This abnormal blood work was likely related to alcohol use. Both levels had normalized by June 2015. He did not want a referral for alcohol related counseling and claimed to be abstinent since April 18, 2015. His Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score was 10, suggesting "a strong likelihood of hazardous or harmful consumption" (alcohol misuse).
The Appellant stated, at the hearing, that he is ashamed of the incident that occurred at his doctor's office in April 2015. He had a friend visiting from out of town the previous week and was on vacation and had consumed a lot of alcohol.
When the friend left, he continued to drink. He forgot about his doctor's appointment and when he realized, he decided to go inebriated as he was intending to have an unpleasant physical exam during the visit and thought the "buzz" from alcohol might help.
He couldn't explain why he brought alcohol to the doctor's office. He denies that he drove to the appointment, as his wife dropped him off at the office. At the hearing, the Appellant described a history of drinking excessively until an incident happens and then he realizes he is drinking too much and abstains. He eventually slowly starts drinking alcohol again on special occasions such as his anniversary, or when a friend visits for celebration or when on vacation.
Both the Registrar and the Appellant agree upon the above facts.
The Registrar's Submissions
MTO argues that the Appellant has not met the legal or Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators ("CCMTA") standards for licensure. He requires at least twelve months of proven abstinence. To consider earlier reinstatement, he will require a letter of support from an addiction specialist. He describes episodes of binge drinking and has had two previous driving suspensions for alcohol related issues. Neither of which were enough to stop his drinking. Therefore, there is no real evidence to suggest that this episode will curb his habit. Additionally, MTO notes that the same physician, who supported him for reinstatement of driving privileges in 2010, was the one who felt the alcohol issues required reporting at this time.
The Appellant's Submissions
The Appellant argues that he really does not drink a lot of alcohol, only on special occasions and vacation. He would have been abstinent for almost nine months already had it not been for the April 2015 incident at his doctor's office. He is embarrassed by this situation and feels this is the "final straw". He no longer plans to drink alcohol. He doesn't want this one incident to dictate the Tribunal's assessment of his character.
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 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.
(3) Despite clause (2)(a) and unless otherwise provided in this Regulation, if there is a difference between a medical standard set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers and a medical standard set out in this Regulation, the Minister shall take into consideration the standard set out in this Regulation instead of the standard set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.
(4) In this section, the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers means the document entitled CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, published by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators and dated March 2009, as it may be amended from time to time, that is available on the Internet through the website of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
Section 47(1) states:
Subject to section 47.1, the Registrar may suspend or cancel,
(b) a driver's licence; ...
on the grounds of,
(d) misconduct for which the holder is responsible, directly or indirectly, related to the operation or driving of a motor vehicle;
(e) conviction of the holder for an offence referred to in subsection 210(1) or (2);
(f) the Registrar having reason to believe, having regard to the safety record of the holder or of a person related to the holder, and any other information that the Registrar considers relevant, that the holder will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely or in accordance with this Act, the regulations and other laws relating to highway safety; or
(g) any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).
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 Appellant presented at the hearing as a respectful and clearly remorseful individual. He is clearly embarrassed and upset about the current situation and is motivated to stop drinking alcohol. The Tribunal accepts that he is sincere in his belief that he will no longer drink. The Tribunal also accepts his testimony that he did not drive to his physician's appointment on the day he arrived intoxicated. However, not only did he arrive intoxicated, but was still drinking alcohol at the appointment. This was cause for legitimate concern on the part of his family physician.
MTO makes a good case for prudent observation. Despite the history of two previous alcohol related suspensions, the Appellant did not stop drinking. His family physician and previous champion for reinstatement was concerned enough to alert the MTO about the intoxication incident in his office. The ALT and AST elevations noted in the Substance Use Assessment form, suggest significant alcohol ingestion and the AUDIT score suggests a definite issue of alcohol misuse, if not dependence. The alcohol misuse does appear to show a history leading to impaired judgment, including at least one documented incident of driving intoxicated with a resulting administrative suspension and Criminal Code conviction.
For these reasons, despite the Appellant's claims of now quitting alcohol for good, it seems more than reasonable on the balance of probabilities that he, at this stage, is suffering from a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Therefore, the requested period of twelve months proven abstinence, or a supporting letter from an addiction specialist, is an acceptable standard in this circumstance.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Appellant to appeal the Registrar's decision, effective May 18, 2015, 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
David Borenstein, M.D., Member
Released: September 28, 2015