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
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:
A.E.D. Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Kevin Flynn, M.D., Member Marisa Victor, Member
Appearances: For the Appellant: A.E.D., appellant For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, agent
Place and date of hearing: By teleconference November 3, 2017
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview:
1The appellant appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend her driver’s licence on the basis of alcohol dependency and substance abuse. The appellant sought assistance for her overconsumption of alcohol and began an alcohol treatment program prior to the driver’s licence suspension. At the time of the hearing, the appellant had turned her family, academic and work life around and had abstained from alcohol for over seven months. The appellant still consumes a small amount of marijuana daily.
2The question we had to determine was whether the appellant suffers from a mental or physical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.
3For the reasons that follow, we find that:
a. the appellant has been diagnosed with alcohol dependence but has abstained from the use of alcohol for a period of over seven months and has completed a substance abuse treatment program;
b. the appellant does not abuse marijuana; and
c. the Registrar has not established that she is affected by the use of alcohol or marijuana to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.
4Accordingly, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
B. ISSUES:
5The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a mental or physical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.
6In order to answer that question, we will address the following issues:
a. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol dependence such that is it likely to interfere with her ability to drive safely?
b. Does the appellant suffer from marijuana addiction to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely?
C. LAW:
7Section 203 of the HTA requires all physicians in the Province of Ontario to report to the Registrar the name, address and clinical condition of any person sixteen years of age or over who is suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle safely.
8The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any “sufficient reason”. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) under the HTA states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not 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.
9Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister of Transportation to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding requirements.
10The CCMTA Standards at s. 15.6.3 state that the criteria for lifting a licence suspension are that the driver with alcohol dependence has abstained from alcohol for 12 months. Earlier re-licencing can be considered after the completion of a rehabilitation program.
11The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities.
12Following 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. EVIDENCE and Analysis:
a. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol dependence such that is it likely to interfere with her ability to drive safely?
13The respondent submitted that it received a medical condition report from the appellant’s physician, Dr. F., on April 3, 2017. The condition reported was alcohol dependence.
14The appellant received notice of her driver’s licence suspension which was dated April 14, 2017.
15The respondent also advised that the appellant began seeing an addictions specialist, Dr. S., in April 2017, after Dr. F.’s notification. Dr. S. completed the Substance Use Assessment on May 4, 2017 where she confirmed the diagnosis of alcohol dependence