Licence Appeal Tribunal

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Date: 2017-12-06

Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8, from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a driver’s licence under subsection 47(1) of the Act

Between:

R.F. Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION

Panel: Peter Savage, M.D., Member Zahra Dhanani, Member

Appearances: For the Appellant: R.F, Appellant Anita Landry, Counsel For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Place and date of hearing: By Teleconference October 10, 2017

REASONS FOR DECISION:

A. Overview

1R.F. is a 33 year old man who lives in Chatham, Ontario. On February 27, 2017 R.F. voluntarily admitted himself into the hospital for alcohol dependence. As required by law, his doctor reported this to the Registrar and as a result on March 11, 2017 the appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended.

2The appellant has since participated in several different programs and his doctor is of the opinion that his licence could be reinstated without issue.

3It has been 8 months since his licence was suspended and he is now appealing the Registrar’s decision.

4We agree with the doctor’s opinion which states that the appellant’s addiction to alcohol will not significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. We set aside the suspension of R.F.’s driver’s license.

B. ISSUES:

5The issue in this appeal is whether R.F. is addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. In order to answer that question, I will address the following issues:

a. Is R.F. addicted to the use of alcohol?

b. If addiction is proven, is R.F.’s addiction to alcohol likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

C. LAW:

6The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any of the grounds listed in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section. Paragraph (g) states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).”

7One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA is that the driver suffers from a medical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) under the HTA states:

(1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not:

(b) 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;

8Under s.14 (2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister may also require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely. The Tribunal may consider whether a driver has complied with such a request.

9The Registrar has the burden to establish the ground for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

D. ANALYSIS:

10In many cases, the first question to be determined is whether the appellant suffers from a particular medical condition or addiction. In this case there was agreement by both parties that the condition of alcohol dependence was present on March 1, 2017.

11The issue to be determined now is whether the addiction still presents a risk to R.F.’s safe operation of a motor vehicle.

12R.F. submitted various medical letters of support from his doctors and from the different programs he is attending. His psychiatrist, family doctor and counsellors are all supportive of R.F. and his continued efforts to maintain his sobriety. R.F.’s family doctor and psychiatrist both recommended reinstatement of his licence.

13In a letter dated August 31st, 2017 R.F.’s mental health doctor Mr. D., whom he’d been seeing for over a year went on at length about all of the things that R.F. has changed in his life to reduce stress and follow a more healthy lifestyle. He is managing his sleep, nutrition, anxiety and depression with medication, physical activity, cognitive behavioural therapy and other tools. Most of the immense stresses R.F. was experiencing at the time of his admitted alcohol abuse have been alleviated.

14In the letter Dr. D. states that R.F. has taken his recovery “very seriously”. R.F. completed an inpatient chemical addiction program at Westover Treatment Facility on July 28th, 2017. R.F. attends two alcohol addiction based recovery groups every week. He continues to attend a weekly “Recovery and Support” meeting at Westover. R.F. and his wife attend family counselling and R.F. has regular meetings with his psychiatrist to make sure he is coping with everything.

15The Registrar raised the issue of absence of haematological data that was requested of R.F..The appellant had made efforts to have this completed before the hearing but logistically this was not possible because he lives in a location where blood testing is only done on specific dates.

16Both R.F. and his counsel stated that they thought the random urine testing was satisfactory evidence. The Registrar noted that the tests had not been done since April 2017. At that time they were normal but he still felt that the Ministry would demand current blood testing.

17We found R.F. to be a credible witness. He was forthcoming with his answers, told the truth and answered all of the questions without hesitation.

18In view of the fact that there was no evidence provided that R.F. had consumed any alcohol since March 2017 and because of R.F.’s evidence that he has stopped drinking plus all of the support from his doctor and other counsellors, we believe that if the tests were normal in March of 2017 they would still be normal now.

19The lack of haematological data is not detrimental to the appellant’s case because he has conducted random urine testing with no abnormal or concerning results.

20While there was not any medical corroboration that R.F. was abstinent at the day of the hearing we believe his testimony that he is not drinking. If you take the results from the urine testing there has been an impressive period of abstinence and the confidence expressed in his letters of support were convincing.

21R.F. is described as someone who is committed to doing the work he needs to do to maintain his sobriety. We also heard evidence of this directly from R.F..

22There is a lot of evidence that R.F. will continue to maintain his sobriety. He has successfully completed in-patient treatment and he regularly attends support groups and follow-up treatment at the in-patient facility. The medications R.F. takes for his anxiety and depression are prescribed and his treatment is monitored by a psychiatrist. The evidence was that these medications are tolerated and will not interfere with his driving.

23Evidence was provided that R.F. has a good plan for follow up, including: Alcoholics Anonymous, continued counselling and ongoing support from his family doctor and psychiatrist.

24R.F. has a group of supportive friends, some of whom he has plans to enter advanced alcohol counselling with. His wife, as well as mother and brothers, are all supporting his recovery, and his family dynamics have improved since he underwent marital counselling.

25R.F. recently withstood a family crisis without drinking. His grandmother, whom he was incredibly close to, was admitted to hospital with a life threatening condition. He was her main aid and had to be by her side for the duration of her stay in hospital as his parents were away.

26R.F. only provided this information when we asked him if he had recently gone through a stressful situation without drinking. This situation immediately came to his mind and he answered without hesitation. It was only when asked about this that he actually realized what an important marker this was in his abstinence.

27Because R.F.’s alcohol addiction was exacerbated in situations of extreme stress prior to his counselling and programs, it was very helpful for us to learn that he went through an extremely stressful period recently without succumbing to alcohol use to cope.

E. CONCLUSION:

28We find that the Registrar has not established on a balance of probabilities that R.F. is addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

29R.F. has his physician’s support for reinstatement. He has abstained from alcohol for over six months, he is attending Alcoholics Anonymous, has the support of his sponsor, family and friends. He also has recently been able to address stressful situations without the use of alcohol. We find that R.F. is in a good place to protect and maintain his sobriety.

ORDER:

30For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the Appellant’s driver’s licence is set aside.