Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 9810/MED
CASE NAME: 9810 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
9810 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: Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard by teleconference: October 22, 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”).
OVERVIEW
The Appellant appealed the Registrar’s decision to suspend his licence to drive for six months following a shock by his implanted defibrillator on July 4, 2015. In order to be able to drive to his pre-booked vacation in Florida, he requested a reduced period of suspension to five months. The Tribunal confirms the suspension, for the reasons set out below.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
At the commencement of the hearing, the Appellant informed the Tribunal and the Registrar that he accepted the opinion of his specialist, Dr. R., that the shock he experienced on July 4, 2015 was not caused by exposure to electromagnetic current while operating his chainsaw.
FACTS
The Appellant, age 70, had a history of coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction, for which he received a prophylactic Intracardiac Defibrillator (“ICD”) in 2012. He was also prescribed an anticoagulant, Warfarin, for atrial fibrillation, Lipitor, Lasix, Aspirin and carvedilol (betablocker).
On July 4, 2015, he was working at his home removing a hedge of bushes around his swimming pool. Having attempted to remove them with his tractor, he proceeded to cut them at the ground level with a chainsaw and experienced a shock. He stated that he did not lose consciousness. He drove the following day to Ohio without incident and the next day went to see his specialist, Dr. R., who examined the ICD and confirmed that he had an episode of ventricular fibrillation on July 4, 2015.
Dr. R. also stated that because of the 41 Joule shock revealed by the examination, such a shock would be extremely painful and that the Appellant was likely starting to lose consciousness before feeling chest pain.
Dr. R. advised the Appellant not to drive for six months and a Medical Condition Report was sent to the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (“MTO”) in compliance with section 203 of the Act.
The Appellant was given a prescription for amiodarone, an anti-arrhythmic medication. Fearing that filling the prescription would adversely affect his out-of-province medical insurance, he did not take this medication.
The Registrar cited the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA”) Guideline, Standard 3.6.31 (for non-commercial drivers who have permanent pacemakers):
Eligible for a licence if it has been 6 months or more since their last episode of sustained symptomatic VT (Ventricular Tachycardia) or syncope judged to be likely due to VT or cardiac arrest
And Standard 3.6.29, where ICD therapy (shock or ATP) has been delivered and there is an associated impaired level of consciousness:
Eligible for a licence if it has been 6 months or more since the event.
ISSUES
Should the decision of the Registrar to suspend the Appellant’s licence be confirmed, modified or set aside?
Does the Appellant suffer from a 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:
- (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 Registrar relies on the report by the Appellant’s specialist that advised the Appellant not to drive for six months.
Also, the CCMTA Guidelines agree with the advice given by the specialist.
The Registrar stated that it will require the Appellant to confirm that he has not experienced another shock within the six-month period, and this confirmation must be provided by a report by his cardiac specialist that includes a list of medications currently being taken by the Appellant.
The Tribunal accepts the medical evidence presented in this appeal, and there is no reason to depart from the CCMTA Guideline of six months. There is a risk of cardiac disturbance that has not been sufficiently stabilized for a period of six months as recommended by the national standards. Furthermore, the Appellant was not taking the medication prescribed to prevent another incident. Also, the Appellant’s plans to travel outside Ontario do not present a valid reason to reinstate his driver’s licence when safety concerns are at stake. The Tribunal can only assess the Appellant’s situation at this time, as opposed to guessing what his situation will be in early December.
Weighing the evidence, on a balance of probabilities, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant is currently suffering from a condition which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.
The Appellant agreed to see his specialist one week before his departure for Florida in December, and to submit a report to MTO which confirms that no further shocks have been recorded. The Registrar will then assess the new medical report and decide at that time whether to reinstate the licence.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Appellant to appeal the Registrar’s decision, effective September 12, 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
Kevin Flynn, M.D., Member
Released: November 9, 2015