Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2016-04-29
FILE:
10073/MED
CASE NAME:
10073 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:
D. Ian Turnbull, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
March 31, 2016
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 is a 46-year-old businessman whose driving privileges were suspended by the Registrar in a letter dated February 18, 2016 (Exhibit #1). The letter asked the Appellant to supply medical information to the Medical Review Section.
The Registrar had received an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”), dated February 13, 2016 (Exhibit #3), from an emergency department doctor reporting pursuant to section 203 of the Act, indicating drug dependence. The MCR stated "a history of using cocaine and driving".
The Registrar's Substance Use Assessment form was completed on February 29, 2016 by the Appellant's physician (the Appellant had been his patient since 2003). The doctor confirmed a history of cocaine abuse.
In a letter dated March 10, 2016, the Registrar determined the Appellant’s driving privileges should remain suspended. In addition, the Registrar asked the Appellant to send the following information to its Medical Review Section for consideration to possibly restore his driving privileges:
- confirmation of abstinence from all illicit drugs for 12 months
- results of urine toxicology screening
- physician support for re-instatement of driving privileges
- physician confirmation of the Appellant having successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program
Upon receipt of the letter, the Appellant immediately applied to two addiction programs for help.
On March 10, 2016, he was assessed at the Addiction Medicine Service through the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (“CAMH”), and is now on a waiting list for the 21-day in-patient rehabilitation program (Exhibit #4).
On March 29, 2016, he went for an assessment at an outpatient addiction program. A case manager appointment was scheduled for April 5, 2016, to discuss treatment planning (Exhibit #5).
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.
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 has made the case that the Appellant's driving privileges should remain suspended. The Registrar was correct in suspending the Appellant’s driving privileges in a letter dated February 18, 2016.
The Appellant has not provided the Registrar's Medical Review Section with the medical information requested in the letters of February 18, 2016 and March 10, 2016:
physician confirmation of abstinence of all illicit drugs for a period of one year
physician confirmation of successful completion of a rehabilitation program
physician endorsement of restoration of his driving privileges
results of urine toxicology drug screening
The Registrar cited the August 2013 guidelines of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA”), page 230, Standard 15.6.3. This section applies to all drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs, such as opioids, cocaine, amphetamines, etc. While these are just guidelines and the Tribunal is not bound to follow them, the Regulation states that the Ministry may consider these guidelines, and the Tribunal will also consider them in deciding this appeal.
15.6.3 Substance Abuse or Dependence - All Drivers
STANDARD
All drivers eligible for a licence if:
Meets the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.
Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an additions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.
The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired.
Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.
Conditions for
Maintaining Licence
None
Reassessment
- Routine or more frequently at the discretion of the licensing authority
Information from
health care providers
Types of drugs used
Details of underlying medical conditions
Opinion from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority
The successful completion of a substance abuse rehabilitation program and
Report on whether the individual is abstinent and/or in remission
Rationale
These substances are known to potentially impair the ability to operate motor vehicle safely.
The Appellant emphasized he "binges" on cocaine, and is not a day-to-day chronic drug user. He stated that the "binges" are one-night affairs related to his involvement with the entertainment industry. On these occasions, he takes cocaine socially because it is "part of the job”. He states that he can be abstinent for up to one and a half years after a one-night binge. He said that he does not have any convictions for drugs or with driving while impaired.
In affirmed testimony, the Appellant acknowledged cocaine binges in December 2015, January 2016 and February 2016. He has not used cocaine since February 2016.
He stated he has used cocaine “on and off” for the last 20 years and has been in several drug rehabilitation programs.
The Appellant stated that the events of February 2016 have caused him to get out of the entertainment business since "the temptation is way too high". Since February 2016, he has been separated from his wife and young children. He stays in a motel. He has no car or access to public transportation. He is now on welfare, after being used to an annual income of $60,000. His notice of appeal refers to the devastating impact of not having his licence – on his current security business opportunities, his ability to travel to see his children and to get treatment, and his own mental health from being trapped in a small town with little access to transit.
The Tribunal realizes the effect this licence suspension has on the Appellant's life and livelihood. But the Act has no provision for hardship; this appeal is about the safety of the Appellant and the public.
The Appellant is making every effort to get his driver's licence back as soon as possible. In summary, he reasons that "he has to get his car back to get better".
The Registrar has made a reasonable request for medical information in letters dated February 18, 2016 and March 10, 2016. As of the hearing date, the Medical Review Section has only received the Substance Use Assessment form.
The Tribunal is mindful of the safety of both the Appellant and the motoring public.
O. Reg. 340/94, section 14, states:
(1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not,
(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.
The medical evidence from the initial MCR dated February 13, 2016 and the Appellant’s physician’s Substance Use Assessment form dated February 29, 2016, refer to cocaine dependence and abuse, and also driving when under the influence of cocaine. The Appellant acknowledged his cocaine use for the past 20 years, and having been in several drug rehabilitation programs, which do not appear to have had lasting success. This evidence of cocaine dependence and abuse supports a finding of addiction.
The Appellant tried to argue that his driving was not affected because he was an occasional binge user, and not a daily chronic user, and furthermore, his cocaine use was tied to being in the entertainment industry, which he is no longer involved in. However, the Tribunal notes that the Appellant’s last three cocaine “binges” were in December 2015, January 2016 and February 2016. Even if the Tribunal can accept his evidence that he has not used cocaine since February 2016, the nature of his cocaine use is too extensive and recent to be able to conclude after these few months of abstinence that he is no longer addicted, or that his ability to drive safely is not being significantly affected by this addiction. The Tribunal has very little medical evidence to support the Appellant; there are no reports yet from his rehabilitation or treatment; and the period of abstinence is relatively short.
The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence, and based on a balance of probabilities, the Registrar has proven that the Appellant is 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.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Appellant to appeal the Registrar’s decision, effective February 27, 2016, 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
D. Ian Turnbull, M.D., Member
Released: April 29, 2016