Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
2014-01-12
FILE:
9258/MED
CASE NAME:
9258 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:
David W. Hurst, M.D., Member
Dybesh Regmi, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard in Toronto:
December 23, 2014
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”).
BACKGROUND
Prior to the incident which lead to the suspension now under appeal, the Appellant had suffered seizures, followed by licence suspensions, in 1989-1990, 1996-1997, 2003 and 2010-2011. These seizures were determined to be idiopathic in nature. All investigations have been negative. After periods of observation and the administration of medication his driving privilege had been restored on each occasion.
FACTS
Mr. Biel informed the Tribunal that the Ministry received a Medical Condition Report dated October 2, 2014 in which a tick box was marked for ‘black out or loss of consciousness or awareness’. On October 3, 2014, Dr. M. L., a neurologist, saw the Appellant regarding this seizure.
It was described as a recent, major generalized convulsive breakthrough seizure. This doctor noted that the Appellant’s last attack had been in November of 2010 after which the dose of Valproic acid was prescribed at 500 mg in the morning and 750 mg at night.
This seizure was considered to be due to sleep deprivation. Dr. M.L described the Appellant as very intelligent and fully understanding that sleep deprivation is an extremely potent trigger of recurrent seizures.
Dr. M.L. decided to gently increase the dose of Epival (Valproic acid) to 750 mg twice a day. The Appellant must maintain a healthy sleep schedule.
On November 5, 2014, the MTO wrote to the Appellant stating that his driving privilege would be suspended, under Section 47 (1) of the Act.and explained in the letter that his physician must confirm that he had not experienced a further seizure and that his condition had remained stable for a period of six months.
A completed Epilepsy and Seizures form was sent to the MTO on November 20, 2014 and signed by Dr. M.L. This medical questionnaire confirmed that the Appellant’s primary condition was seizures, the last one having occurred on September 29, 2014. The condition was noted to be idiopathic and thought to be caused by sleep deprivation. Dr. M.L. described the Appellant as totally compliant. He was extremely reliable and a highly intelligent and sensitive man. Dr. M.L. recommended that he be allowed to drive again as of that date.
Also, on November 20, 2014, Dr. M.L. wrote to the MTO regarding the Appellant’s break through attack which occurred on September 29, 2014 after having been seizure free for almost four years. Dr. M.L described the Appellant as being significantly sleep deprived when this happened and it was noted that his dose of Epival was to be increased to a total of 750 mg twice a day. Dr. M.L. noted that sleep deprivation must be avoided but otherwise the Appellant had done beautifully over the last several years.
On December 2, 2014, the MTO wrote to the Appellant informing him that his driving privilege would remain under suspension. They asked for a confirmation that he had remained seizure free for a period of six months.
The Agent then entered a copy of the CCMTA Driver Fitness Document, a publication of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
The Tribunal was directed to page 248 of this document and paragraph 17.6.6-epilepsy, and the subsequent section 17.6.7 indicating the recommendations for reinstatement which in fact require that the Appellant has completed six months seizure free since the previous seizure.
Mr. Biel then referred the Tribunal to a letter from Dr. M.L. dated December 5, 2014 in which he stated, “I fully support your appeal to have your driving privileges reinstituted as soon as possible.”
In this letter, Dr. M.L. underlined the great importance of sleep deprivation as a provoking factor and that his dose of Epival had been