Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en Tribunal matière de permis
FILE: 10164/MED
CASE NAME: 10164 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
10164 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 by teleconference: May 12, 2016
DECISION AND REASONS
This is an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) by the Appellant regarding 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
On March 11, 2014, the Appellant’s family physician filled a Medical Condition Report.
The reason indicated was “Dementia or Alzheimer’s”. The family physician commented as follows:
“Probably mixed dementia. Scored poorly on MOCA, MMSE, with especial deficits in visual special area, 2 MVA’s in the last 2 years. Also damage in parking garage with car.”
On March 13, 2014, the Registrar sent the Appellant a letter informing him that his driver’s licence was suspended for medical reasons.
The Appellant requested (and was granted) a temporary driver’s licence in order to undergo a driving evaluation.
On June 5, 2014, the Appellant completed a Driving Evaluation. The results were reviewed by the Tribunal and are summarized as follows:
- The Appellant stated that he had no concerns about his driving.
- He reported that he drove regularly and had been in one accident.
- The Assessor found him physically able to drive a car.
- Cognitive testing before the road test showed deficits in cognition and a 72% probability of failing the road test based on the cognitive testing.
- During the road test, the Appellant made multiple driving errors many of which were dangerous. Examples given by the Assessor included: positioning his vehicle dangerously close to another vehicle, committing to a left turn without a clear view of oncoming traffic, and committing to a left hand turn with a pedestrian in the crosswalk.
In the summary statement, the Assessor concluded that the Appellant’s driving was impaired and did not recommend re-instatement of driving privileges. The Assessor stated “driving cessation is strongly recommended.”
The Registrar reviewed the Driving Evaluation and the Appellant’s driver’s licence remained suspended.
The Appellant applied for a temporary driver’s licence so that he could take driving lessons.
The Registrar then asked the family physician to fill a Cognitive Assessment form.
On that form, the family physician reported mild dementia and commented:
“Dementia – Very impaired in visuospatial. Unable to …draw a clock or copy a square. Persistent desire to drive.”
The Respondent sent a letter on October 29, 2015 stating that a driving evaluation from a rehabilitation centre was required to determine if he was eligible for a driver’s licence.
A second Functional Driving Assessment was completed on December 7, 2015. This assessment was done at a different centre than the first assessment.
The Assessor commented “(The Appellant) was observed to drive up quickly behind other vehicles on city streets several times. He made several unsafe lane changes and the driving instructor had to take hold of the steering wheel multiple times during the assessment. He did not regularly scan the environment, use mirrors, or check his blind spot. He needed repetition to follow single step commands. He had slow response time, needed frequent cueing, and other cars had to break to allow for his errors. He was slow/unsafe merging on the highway and needed cueing to speed up. Overall he was observed to have deficits in driving. He had limited insight into his driving limitations and as a result driver rehab is not recommended.”
The Appellant expressed his frustration with the two driving assessments. He said that, in his opinion, they had not properly tested his ability to drive. He did not give any specific examples of why that was.
The Appellant told the Tribunal that it was very difficult for him and his wife to conduct their lives without him driving and that he was the only driver between them.
The Registrar asked that the driving privilege remain suspended due to the concerns of the family doctor and the results of the two driving assessments.
ISSUES
Should the decision of the Registrar to suspend the Appellant’s licence be confirmed, modified or set aside?
In particular:
Is the Appellant suffering from a physical condition 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
The Appellant has dementia as diagnosed by his family doctor and scores poorly on standardized tests of cognitive function. This disease has lead to deficits in cognitive function, mental alertness, and awareness that impair his ability to drive safely. Two functional driving assessments have concluded the same thing: that the Appellant makes multiple driving errors that were dangerous and reinstatement of his driving privilege was not recommended.
The Tribunal accepts that the driving assessments were done comprehensively and in good faith and that the conclusions were valid.
The results of the driving assessments, coupled with the expressed concerns of the family doctor support the conclusion that the Appellant suffers from a physical condition such that his driving abilities are impaired with the result that the condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. His continued driving would present a danger to both him and the public.
DECISION
Upon the application by the Appellant to appeal the decision effective March 23, 2014 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: May 25, 2016