Licence Appeal Tribunal
FILE: 10605/MED
CASE NAME: 10605 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
10605, 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: February 9, 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 December 29, 2016, Dr. B., a resident physician in Psychiatry, filed a Medical Condition Report stating that the Appellant had the condition of Alcohol Dependence. There was no further information provided on the form.
On January 3, 2017, the Ministry sent the Appellant a letter stating that his licence would be suspended. The Ministry requested more information from the Appellant's medical practitioner including the completion of a Substance Use Assessment Form.
The Ministry informed the Appellant that if alcohol dependence was confirmed, a period of abstinence for 12 months would be required before a reinstatement of his 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.
The Appellant's driving record shows that, in October 2014, his licence was suspended for impaired driving for the duration of 1 year.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellant said that he has abstained from drinking since December 26, 2016. Prior to that, he said that he "did not drink every day" and was "not dependent on alcohol."
He said that he had voluntarily presented himself to a hospital to inquire about alcohol counselling because he wanted to "stay on the right path."
In responding to questions from the Respondent, the Appellant confirmed that Dr. B. had done a one-on-one assessment with him and had asked him questions about his drug and alcohol use. Dr. B. had recommended counselling at the Appellant's local hospital but this counselling, if he undertook it, was at his own discretion.
The Appellant said that he feels as if he is being punished for seeking help and that losing his licence is unfair.
He finds it difficult to get to work and to visit his family without a licence.
He said that he does not have a family doctor and mostly attends walk-in clinics. He has thus far been unable to find a medical professional to fill in his Substance Use Assessment Forms.
He is currently attending alcohol counselling through his local hospital but it is not clear if this qualifies as a formal addictions program. The Appellant did not provide details about the counselling and there were no reports submitted from the counsellor.
The Respondent referenced the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers 15.6.3:
Substance Abuse or Dependence – All drivers
"All drivers are 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 a physician who had assessed his alcohol use and seen fit to report alcohol dependence to the Ministry. The Respondent said that the previous suspension for impaired driving and the fact that the Appellant was attending alcohol counselling were supportive of a history of alcohol dependency and there was no other medical evidence to refute the diagnosis.
The Respondent noted that the Appellant has been abstinent for less than 2 months by his own admission and so does not meet the minimum standard for reinstatement.
The Respondent asked that the decision of the Registrar be confirmed.
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.
The Tribunal finds that a diagnosis of alcohol addiction has been proven in this case, based on the diagnosis of Dr. B., who met with the Appellant in person and assessed the Appellant's alcohol use. The Tribunal relies on Dr. B.'s assessment and gives it more weight than the Appellant's self-report of alcohol use. The Appellant's previous licence suspension for impaired driving also illustrates that the Appellant has made poor decisions about driving and alcohol use in the past.
There is no other medical information available to challenge the diagnosis made by Dr. B. and as such, the Tribunal finds that, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant is addicted to alcohol.
The CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers recommend that, before licence reinstatement, people who are found to be addicted to 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 the circumstances of this case do not justify departing from the CCMTA guidelines regarding when a driver who is addicted to alcohol 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. In consideration of the Appellant's diagnosis of alcohol addiction and the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal finds that the Appellant is addicted to alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
DECISION
Upon the appeal of the Registrar's decision effective January 13, 2017 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: March 3, 2017