Licence Tribunal
Appeal d'appel en
Tribunal matière de permis
DATE:
2017-02-08
FILE:
10552/MED
CASE NAME:
10552 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:
Katherine Whitehead, M.D., Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Self-Represented
For the Respondent:
Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
January 26, 2017
DECISION
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" or "Ministry") pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act"). For the reasons provided below, the Tribunal is confirming the decision of the Registrar.
FACTS
On November 6, 2016, Dr. E, an ER physician, filed a medical condition report stating that the Appellant had the conditions of "Alcohol Dependence and Seizure-Alcohol related."
On November 7, 2016, the Ministry sent the Appellant a letter stating that his licence would be suspended. At the time of the suspension, the Ministry informed the Appellant that a period of both abstinence and being seizure-free for 12 months would be required before reinstatement of the licence, and that this period could be reduced if he completed a treatment program and if his physician was supportive of his driving privilege being reinstated.
On November 21, 2016, Dr O, the Appellant's family physician, completed a Substance Use Assessment. It contained the following information:
-The diagnosis was alcohol abuse.
-The Appellant had experienced a seizure that was due to alcohol withdrawal.
-The last seizure was under three months ago.
-There had been a post-seizure assessment and this assessment did not indicate a cause of the seizure other than alcohol.
-The Appellant has abstained from alcohol for under six months.
-No formal addictions program had been completed.
-The blood tests MCV, GGT, AST, and ALT had been completed (these are tests for liver function that are sometimes used to track the progress of alcohol related liver disease). Of these, the GGT, AST and ALT were elevated and this was thought to be due to alcohol use.
A lab report from December 12, 2016 showed elevated levels of AST and GGT.
Dr. O completed a second Substance Use Assessment form on January 20, 2017. The information reported was the same as the previous form with the following exceptions:
-All of the lab tests were normal.
-In the comment section, Dr. O wrote "he has not been drinking since the incident of November 5, 2016."
A lab report from January 17, 2017 showed normal values for bilirubin, ALT, AST, and GGT, and no alcohol was detected in the blood.
On January 25, 2017, the Ministry sent the Appellant a letter saying that it had reviewed his new medical information and that his licence would remain under suspension.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Respondent referenced the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) Medical Standards for Drivers, Section 15.6.3:
Substance Abuse or Dependence – All drivers
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 addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.
The Respondent argued that the Appellant had been diagnosed by two physicians as having alcohol abuse or dependence, and that he had not demonstrated a long enough period of abstinence or completion of addictions treatment to be considered for licence reinstatement.
The Respondent asked that the decision of the Registrar be confirmed.
The Appellant stated that he has been driving for 26 years without incident. He noted that the event that brought him to hospital was not related to driving. He said that not having his driver's licence makes it difficult for him to work. He said that he has abstained from alcohol since November 2016 and noted that his liver enzyme tests have improved.
The Appellant said that he only drinks "on occasion" (once every 2-3 months) and only while he is at home and not driving. He said that on the night of November 5, 2016, he drank three small cans of beer, after which he started feeling sick to his stomach and vomiting and trembling. He does not believe that he suffered a seizure, and he attributed his symptoms to hunger.
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 (the "Regulation"), section 14(1), 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.
Section 47(1)(g) of the Act gives the Registrar the power to suspend or cancel a driver's licence for any "sufficient reason" not referred to elsewhere in s. 47(1), which would include section 14(1) of the Regulation, cited above.
Section 14(2) of the Regulation permits the Minister to take into consideration the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers in determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met.
Section 50 of the Act permits the driver to appeal the Registrar's section 47 decision to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal "may confirm, modify or set aside the decision of the Minister or the Registrar."
APPLICATION OF THE LAW TO FACTS
Alcoholism can interfere with a person's ability to safely drive if it increases their probability of driving while impaired or causes other mental or physical changes that occur even when a person is not impaired.
Given the impairment in judgment and insight that can result from being addicted to alcohol or illicit substances, people who are addicted to these substances may also be impaired in their ability to decide when it is safe to drive.
Driving while impaired by alcohol causes deficits in consciousness, awareness, judgement and reflexes (among other things). This makes driving while impaired dangerous to drivers and the public.
In the case of alcohol induced seizures, the risk is increased. If seizures were to recur while driving it would lead to loss of consciousness and put the driver and the public at risk of harm.
The CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers recommend that, before licence reinstatement, people who are found to be abusing or dependent on drugs or alcohol should demonstrate a period of abstinence of 12 months, or undergo a treatment program and obtain the support of their health care professionals to shorten the abstinence recommendation. The Tribunal is not bound by these Guidelines but may consider them.
The Tribunal finds that a diagnosis of alcohol addiction within the meaning of the Act has been proven in this case, based on the credible diagnosis by two physicians of alcohol abuse and the occurrence of an alcohol-related seizure. The Tribunal relies on this medical evidence and gives it more weight than the Appellant's self-report of more minimal alcohol use and his alternate opinion about his seizure.
The Tribunal finds that the circumstances of this case do not justify departing from the CCMTA guidelines regarding when a driver with substance abuse or dependence should have their licence reinstated. The Appellant has not been abstinent for at least 12 months; nor has he been abstinent for a shorter period of time after completing a treatment program and obtaining his doctor's support for his driving privilege being reinstated. The occurrence of the alcohol-related seizure increases the risk in this case and is further reason to require a longer period of abstinence and remaining seizure-free.
The medical evidence is very clearly against the Appellant, and it supports a finding that the Appellant is not only addicted to alcohol, but he is addicted to an extent that is likely to significantly interfere with is ability to drive safely.
DECISION
Upon the appeal of the Registrar's decision effective September 22, 2016 to suspend the Appellant's driver's licence pursuant to section 47(1) of the Act, and having considered the evidence provided to 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: February 8, 2017