Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2016-07-28
FILE:
10293/MED
CASE NAME:
10293 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 V
ehicles 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:
Dr. David Borenstein, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Self-represented
For the Respondent:
Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference :
July 18, 2016
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal 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
The Appellant voluntarily arrived to a large urban psychiatric facility on April 24, 2016 with intoxication after binge drinking, and saw a psychiatric resident Dr. N.M., who filed a Medical Condition Report with the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). It claimed the Appellant suffered from “Alcohol Dependence” and noted, “Client’s spouse reported that he was drinking while driving”. The MTO wrote the Appellant the next day, informing him of an impending licence suspension. This letter asked for a period of abstinence for one year, or possibly a lesser duration, if proof was shown of completion of an alcohol treatment program or medical support of driving privileges.
The Appellant submitted the following documentation for review to the MTO;
A substance abuse assessment form dated June 13, 2016, completed by a new physician who had seen him twice and worked at the same psychiatric facility in which he was originally seen, stated, “he suffers from alcohol dependence or ‘alcohol use disorder’”. He received detoxification during his initial visit in April 2016. The doctor also noted that there was no documentation of a completed treatment program but that the Appellant stated he could provide this at a later date.
A letter dated May 31, 2016 from the Appellant’s family physician of eight years stating that he is, “compliant with all treatment related to alcohol addiction and is sober and at low risk for resumption of alcohol drinking behaviour”.
A letter from a community addiction treatment centre stating the Appellant had undergone some treatment sessions, all dated prior to his April 2016 binge episode.
The Appellant’s spouse addressed the Tribunal and the Registrar’s representative. She asked why the MTO continues to refer to alcohol “dependence” and not “use”. Her feeling is these are different issues. She had questions about what is actually required by the MTO to reinstate the licence. She stated that her husband arrived to the hospital for treatment of depression, secondary to stress, and then was unfairly labeled based on incorrect information. But the reality is that she saw him on the driveway of their home, in a parked car “sneaking” a drink before hiding the alcohol in the garage. The Appellant agreed with his spouse’s testimony. He feels this system is stacked against him and that nothing can be done. As a whole, he does not drink alcohol and is quite against drinking.
During cross-examination, the Registrar questioned why the Appellant was seeking therapy prior to the April 2016 episode. The response was that the Appellant was being proactive in his drinking relapse behavior and that very little of the time was spent discussing alcohol abuse. Mostly, it was treatment for depression and drinking triggers. Abstinence was not discussed. The Registrar also questioned whether a treatment program had been completed, and it had not. There appeared to be some confusion over what was meant by a “treatment program”. The Appellant and his spouse appeared to be under the impression that just talking to a doctor or counselor is treatment. They also mentioned several times that they had support from several physicians that he is “okay” but there is no documentation supplied to that effect. They also asked the Tribunal for a temporary return of the licence to “prove he is safe”, but the Tribunal explained its role and mandate in a medical review, and noted that this was not one of the options that it could order.
The Registrar’s Submissions
The Registrar submits that two independent physicians have documented the Appellant’s drinking problems in good faith. Section 15.6.3 of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Association (CCMTA) Guidelines state in cases of alcohol abuse or dependence, that one must abstain for 12 months, or see an addiction specialist and/or physician for favorable recommendation or complete a treatment program for earlier reinstatement of driving privileges. None of the reports submitted by three independent physicians makes this statement of support or endorses a driver’s licence for the Appellant. The Appellant claims there are no alcohol issues, but the Registrar notes that the binge drinking in April was so bad as to require an in-patient hospital stay for detoxification, and furthermore, he was sitting in a car consuming alcohol and hiding it from his spouse.
The Appellant’s Submissions
The Appellant and his spouse argue that the MTO has not proven him unsafe to drive. They submit that the original report was based on poor physician judgment and erroneous information. He said that he has no convictions and he is best served by allowing him to get along with his life.
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 to an extent that is 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;
a) 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:
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
Three physicians have indicated an “alcohol problem” of some sort, whether one labels it “alcohol dependence” or “an alcohol use disorder”. No physician has made any statement to endorse driving. There is no indication that the original Medical Condition Report was inaccurate in reporting an alcohol issue based on his clinical presentation for admission to the hospital. The Appellant’s self-described behavior does point to a problem with alcohol use, which includes drinking in a parked car before driving, hiding the alcohol use and requiring hospital in-patient detoxification. The MTO does not need to wait for an accident to occur to deal with questions of safety.
The Tribunal recognizes that the process laid out by the MTO for licence reinstatement can be daunting. They follow the CCMTA Guideline in situations involving alcohol addiction or dependence. Therefore, the MTO requires documentation to prove a completed treatment program, or a medical endorsement of driving privileges to be submitted, as well as proof of a period of abstinence. In this case, following the CCMTA standards for a driver’s licence is reasonable.
The finding of alcohol addiction is supported by medical evidence from two physicians that refer to alcohol dependence, as well as a pattern of use and abuse that causes significant concerns about driver safety. The Appellant’s May 31, 2016 letter from his family physician, refers to the Appellant being “compliant with all treatment related to alcohol addiction” and states that he is “sober and at low risk for resumption of alcohol drinking behaviour”. But this letter is not sufficient evidence of a sustained period of abstinence, and it does not directly state the physician’s support for reinstating the Appellant’s driver’s licence. Its wording also suggests that there has been a problem with alcohol.
There is also no evidence of the Appellant having completed an alcoholism treatment program – having gone to some sessions is not enough to trigger the CCMTA guideline’s shorter period of at least six months of abstinence, versus the one-year that would otherwise be required. These guidelines are of course not binding on the Tribunal, and there have been cases where the circumstances support reinstating the licence of an Appellant who has not yet gone through the period of abstinence stated in the guidelines. There is no absolute requirement for a treatment program to be of any minimum duration. In this case, the Tribunal commends the Appellant’s previous proactive behaviour in seeking help. However, the circumstances in this case require a more complete rehabilitation program if the Appellant wishes to rely on a shorter period of abstinence to regain his driving privileges.
As noted above, the Appellant’s pattern of alcohol use includes drinking in a parked car before driving, hiding the alcohol use and requiring hospital in-patient detoxification. Along with the other medical evidence, this supports the Tribunal’s finding that the MTO has met its onus to prove that, on the balance of probabilities, that he 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
On the Appellant appeal of the decision dated May 5, 2016 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
David Borenstein, M.D., Member
Released: July 28, 2016