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:
D.W.S. Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: D. Stephen Jovanovic, member
Written Submissions By:
For the Appellant: D.W.S., Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Overview
1The appellant, D.W.S., requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision to confirm the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) to suspend his driver’s licence.
2The Registrar suspended D.W.S.’s driver’s licence on September 12, 2017 under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, (“HTA”) on the basis that he suffered from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. A physician who attended to D.W.S. during a hospital stay had reported to the Registrar that D.W.S. suffered from cognitive impairment.
3D.W.S. appealed the suspension to the Tribunal, challenging the diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Following a hearing, the Tribunal found that D.W.S. suffered from cognitive impairment, based on the diagnoses of two doctors. The Tribunal accepted the less severe of the two diagnoses, which was mild cognitive impairment. The Tribunal also accepted the opinion of a neurologist that the medications taken by D.W.S. may affect his alertness, concentration and ability to focus. The Tribunal found that the presence of both mild cognitive impairment and the possible effects of his medication were likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. The Tribunal noted that if D.W.S. successfully completes a driving evaluation, the Registrar will consider reinstatement of his licence.
4D.W.S. requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision on the ground set out in Rule 18.2(d) of the Tribunal’s rules.
5Rule 18.2(d) requires a party requesting reconsideration to establish that “[t]here is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.” The new evidence that D.W.S. relies on is his admission records to the hospital from August and September 2017.
6The Executive Chair has delegated to me her responsibility to decide this request for reconsideration.
7For the reasons that follow, I am not satisfied that the new evidence would have affected the result, nor am I satisfied that it could not have reasonably been obtained earlier. Accordingly, I dismiss this request for reconsideration.
Submissions
8D.W.S. enclosed his hospital admission notes and reports with his request for reconsideration. In his submissions, he explains that throughout his hospital stay, he saw many different doctors who changed his medications several times. He became confused in the night but was fine during the day. He points to references in the reports to hallucinations and delirium at night, but not during the day. He also points to references in the reports to changes in medication and medical staff. He states that he has not had any episodes of anxiety or hallucinations since he left the hospital. He submits that the discharge summary completed by an attending physician states that he is doing better now that his medication has been adjusted.
9The Registrar submits that the Tribunal should decline to reconsider the decision because the following requirements of Rule 18.1 were not complied with:
a. the request was made 39 days after the decision was released, beyond the 21-day period set out in Rule 18.1;
b. D.W.S. failed to specify which grounds in 18.2 he is relying on, as required by Rule 18.1(a); and
c. D.W.S. did not specify whether he is proceeding with an appeal or judicial review, as required by Rule 18.1(b).
10Alternatively, the Registrar submits that the Tribunal should dismiss the request for reconsideration as none of the grounds set out in Rule 18.2 are met. With respect to 18.2(d), the Registrar submits that the new evidence put forward by D.W.S. could have been obtained prior to the hearing, as it was created nearly six months before the hearing. The Registrar also submits that the new evidence would not have affected the result, and in fact provides further support for the Registrar’s position.
ANALYSIS
Requirements of Rule 18.1
11In order to facilitate a fair, open and accessible process and an efficient, proportional, and timely resolution of this matter on the merits, I have decided to extend the 21-day time limit in this case, pursuant to Rule 3.1. I note that the Registrar has not raised any specific prejudice caused by D.W.S.’s delay in requesting reconsideration.
12Contrary to the Registrar’s submissions, D.W.S. did indicate in his request for reconsideration that he was relying on the ground in Rule 18.2(d).
13With respect to the requirement in Rule 18.1(b) to provide notification if the party is seeking judicial review or pursuing an appeal in relation to the decision, this does not require a party to provide notification that they are not pursuing one of those options. The absence of such a notification does not prevent me from considering his request: C.T. and Aviva Insurance Canada, 2017 CanLII 77398 (Ont. LAT), at paras. 7-12.
Is there new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result?
14I am not satisfied that the new evidence submitted by D.W.S. would have affected the Tribunal’s finding that D.W.S. suffers from mild cognitive impairment likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. As pointed out by the Registrar, the attending physician states in D.W.S.’s discharge summary that it is his opinion, “especially given the test and the results and the CT scan, that a dementing process is likely at work.” He also states, “If I am correct about the dementing illness, his cognition will continue to worsen.” This supports the Tribunal’s finding that D.W.S. suffers from cognitive impairment.
15Although, as noted by D.W.S., the discharge summary states that he “has been better now that his medications have been adjusted”, this is unlikely to have affected the Tribunal’s decision, given the physician’s conclusion that D.W.S. likely suffers from a “dementing illness” that will continue to worsen.
16Additionally, D.W.S. has provided no explanation for why this report could not have been obtained earlier.
17Accordingly, I find that D.W.S. has not established the ground for reconsideration set out in Rule 18.2(d).
ORDER
18Upon consideration of the submissions of the parties, D.W.S.’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________________ D. Stephen Jovanovic
Date of Issue: September 12, 2018