Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 9797/MED
CASE NAME: 9797 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
9797 Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR: Katherine Whitehead, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Self-represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard in Toronto: October 13, 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”).
EVIDENCE
The Appellant’s class G driver’s license was suspended on March 26, 2015 for medical reasons. He appeared before the Tribunal to appeal the suspension.
On March 7, 2015, the Respondent received an unsolicited Medical Condition Report where a physician checked the box for “Mental or Emotional Illness – Unstable”. In the comment section, it was indicated that the Appellant had a history of substance use and that a urine toxicology screen was “not provided”.
The Appellant was involved in a motor vehicle accident on March 6, 2015.
His car was found in the ditch and he was subsequently charged with Possession of a Schedule 2 Substance (Cannabis). Page 5 of the arrest report was made available to the tribunal (as part of the Respondent and Appellant’s files). There was no further documentation of the accident.
The Appellant told the Tribunal that he felt the cause of the accident was poor road conditions. He also stated that he had been brought to hospital for assessment at his request because “I was concussed a bit”.
The medical reports from that hospital visit were not available.
The Appellant told the Tribunal that during that hospitalization he was assessed by a psychiatrist. He thought the reason the psychiatrist was asked to see him was because he had had a recent admission to the psychiatry unit (in December 2014).
On March 16, 2015, the Appellant’s driver’s license was suspended and the Respondent asked that he submit a completed Substance Use Assessment form and Mental Health Assessment form.
The Appellant told the Tribunal that he has been unable to get these forms filled by any of his health care practitioners. He said that his doctors have refused to fill out his forms. His current plan is to take his forms to his new psychiatrist at his next visit.
The Appellant also stated that “They tried to force me to take meds after my accident”.
On August 11, 2015, the Appellant appeared before the Consent and Capacity Board where it was determined that he was competent to make decisions about his treatment plan (and thus could not be forced to take medications against his will. The treatment plan considered in the Consent and Capacity Board Decision was: “Community treatment plan; oral and/or intramuscular antipsychotic, side effect and anti-anxiety medications”. The decision of the Consent and Capacity Board was made available to the tribunal as part of the Respondent and Applicant files.
The Appellant told the Tribunal that he has been off medications for the past 4 months and that he has been feeling generally well.
The Appellant was not clear on what, if any, mental illness he believes himself to have or have had previously. He provided the Tribunal with a copy of a referral form for an Outpatient Mental Health and Addictions Program where schizophrenia is listed as the provisional diagnosis. The date on the form is illegible and it is not clear who filled out the form. He stated that the purpose of the referral was to have him seen by a psychiatrist who would follow him as his regular doctor was retiring.
The Appellant told the Tribunal that he is depressed about not being able to drive and feels frustrated by the difficulty he is having getting someone to fill out his forms required by the Respondent. He asked that he Tribunal set aside his suspension.
The representative for the Respondent asked that the licence remain suspended as there was no medical evidence provided to refute the initial report of an unstable mental or emotional illness.
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?
or
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.
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
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.
People with mental health and/or substance abuse issues may suffer from impairment sufficient to present safety concerns while driving.
Both substance abuse and mental illness can lead to deficits in judgement, attention, concentration, and decision making. If they are uncontrolled, people with these impairments present a danger while driving to both themselves and the public.
There is evidence that the Appellant suffers from a mental illness given (1) his report of an inpatient psychiatry hospital admission in December 2014; ( 2) his referral to (and subsequent follow up by) mental health services; and (3) the treatment recommendations for which he appeared before the Consent and Capacity Board.
The Consent and Capacity Board decision says only that the Appellant is not obligated to follow the treatment plan. It does not consider whether the treatment plan is medically indicated.
The Appellant did not give specific details about his mental illness (or lack thereof) nor was supplementary medical information provided. There was no information available regarding any possible substance use or abuse.
The details surrounding the motor vehicle accident on March 6, 2015 are not clear and the medical records are incomplete.
The Tribunal notes that there was sufficient concern about his mental state that a physician filled out the Medical Condition Report on March 7, 2015.
The Tribunal appreciates that the Appellant has had difficulty obtaining documentation from his medical team, but without further information the facts must stand as they are.
There is no evidence available that refutes the concern of the physician who filled the initial report.
There is evidence that the Appellant suffers from mental illness but no information as to the extent of this illness or its stability.
Given that (1) the Appellant was involved in an accident while driving;(2) the medical assessment surrounding that accident prompted a physician to complete a Medical Condition report; and (3) there is no further clinical assessment available to refute that initial concern, the Tribunal concludes there is a reasonable likelihood that the Appellant’s mental condition is sufficiently impaired to interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Appellant to appeal the decision effective March 26, 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
Katherine Whitehead M.D., Member
Released: October 30, 2015