Licence Appeal Tribunal
File Number: 11666/MED
Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (the HTA), R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a Decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles pursuant to section 47(1) of the HTA to Suspend a Driver’s Licence
Between:
C.M-B.
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Erica Weinberg, M.D., Member Harriet Lewis, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Place and date of hearing: By Teleconference November 6, 2018
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. OVERVIEW:
1The appellant, C.M-B., is a 55 year-old woman. On June 18, 2018 she attended at a hospital emergency room with her adult daughter for treatment of extreme anxiety brought on by alcohol consumption. The emergency room physician Dr. P.S. provided a Medical Condition Report to the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) indicating alcohol dependence. As a result, on July 14, 2018, the MTO suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence indefinitely.
2In September 2018, the MTO reviewed the case and the appellant was advised that the period of suspension was to be one year, subject to a further reduction to six months upon confirmation by her physician of:
i. six months of abstinence from alcohol,
ii. the successful completion of an alcohol treatment program, and
iii. a recent report of normal bio-chemical markers with a clinical explanation of any level outside of the normal laboratory range.
3On October 10, 2018, the appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of the suspension and the matter was heard on November 6, 2018.
4For the reasons which follow, we uphold the Registrar’s decision.
B. ISSUES:
5The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. In order to answer that question, we will address the following sub-issues:
Does the appellant have alcohol dependence?
If so, is the dependence likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely?
C. EVIDENCE:
6The appellant C.M-B. has had a history of alcohol dependence. In March 2017, she was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver, and since then has been followed both by her family physician and by a specialist. She has made efforts to remain abstinent and has sought some help and support for doing so. She attends regular appointments with her –long-time family physician Dr. C., who sent her to a psychologist for cognitive behavioral therapy. In September 2017, she was also assessed by a psychiatrist. At or about that time she also began going to A.A. although intermittently. The only medication she takes is Citalopram, an antidepressant. She does not use marijuana or any illegal substances.
7C.M-B. resides with her husband and adult daughter. Currently there is no alcohol kept in the home, although her husband keeps beer in a refrigerator in the garage.
8The appellant testified that since her cirrhosis diagnosis she has relapsed on three occasions, in each case by drinking wine. The first occasion was in August 2017 while travelling home by train from Toronto. The second was in May 2018 during a long weekend reunion with her cousins and the third was at a Fathers’ Day celebration at her home on June 17, 2018.
9On this last occasion, C.M-B. slipped away from the celebration to have a drink of wine, ultimately consuming a full bottle. The next day she became very concerned about the effect that the drinking might have on her cirrhosis, and began to panic. During her panicked state she consumed another half bottle of wine to try and settle herself down but was unable to get her panic under control. She telephoned her daughter who returned home and drove her to the hospital emergency department in the hope that she would be admitted as an in-patient. Her daughter remained with her while she was at the hospital where she was seen by three people: two doctors and one person she believes might have been a nurse practitioner. She was released early in the morning of June 19. She has not had a drink of alcohol since that day.
10In the June 19, 2018 Medical Condition Report, the emergency room physician Dr. P.S. noted that the appellant “stated that she drove while intoxicated yesterday”. The appellant disputes this and provided affidavit evidence from her daughter in support of oral testimony that she misunderstood the doctor when questioned as to “whether she drove”. Both the appellant and her daughter understood the question to be a general one, i.e. whether the appellant drives a motor vehicle. She believes that the doctor took her affirmative answer to mean that she drove herself to the hospital, when in fact her daughter had driven.
11The appellant has a long an unblemished driving record. For many years she worked as a pharmaceutical representative which involved substantial driving, and more recently and until this suspension, she was employed by Canada Post on a casual basis as a letter carrier which also involves substantial driving. Since the suspension she has been reassigned to inside work which has resulted in reduced hours. She hopes that if this appeal succeeds and her licence is reinstated, she will return to her previous position as a letter carrier.
12Because of her casual status and the shortage of shifts in the spring of 2018, the appellant had made arrangements to enter a three- week residential alcohol treatment program. However, she testified that when her licence was suspended she did not take up that opportunity because of concerns about her ability to pursue her appeal while in a sequestered setting. Notwithstanding, she says she has been “working hard on her sobriety”. She has