A.D. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2018 CanLII 140912

Date: 2018-12-06

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.D.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Jonathan Batty, Associate Chair

Date: December 6, 2018

Written Submissions By:

For the Appellant: A.D., Self-represented

Background

1The appellant, A.D., requests reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s decision to confirm the suspension of his driver’s licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”). The Tribunal found that A.D. suffers from cognitive impairment, and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

2The Executive Chair delegated to me her responsibility to decide this reconsideration request.

3A.D. is 86 years old and in his request for reconsideration explains that he has been driving since he was 16 years old. He first obtained a licence to drive a truck in 1970 because he was in plumbing services.

4A.D. attaches a number of documents to his request for reconsideration. They include various pieces of correspondence from the Ministry of Transportation, the Tribunal, and a physician; scoring sheets from the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) done in 2012 and 2017; and what appear to be news articles related to doctors closing their practice.

5A.D. requests that the Tribunal review the decision to suspend his driver’s licence as he states that he could not pass the test that his doctor gave him as he only has a grade four education.

6No submissions were requested from the respondent, and none were received.

7For the reasons that follow, A.D.’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.

Reasons

8A request for reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision may be granted only based on the grounds listed in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the “Rules”):

9The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the Rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;

(a) The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made;

(b) The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or

(c) There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.

10I understand that A.D. first started driving 70 years ago and may well have a long history of safe driving pre-dating his diagnosis of having a cognitive impairment and the suspension he initially received in 2012. The issues before the Tribunal were whether A.D. has a cognitive impairment and, if so, would it be likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

11The reconsideration process does not provide someone the ability to have a decision changed because he or she simply disagrees with a Tribunal’s decision. The rule affords the Tribunal the ability to remedy serious breaches of procedural fairness or errors that materially affect decisions. In matters such as this, it is only justified if someone can show an adjudicator has either made legal or factual mistake in a decision that would change the outcome, where false evidence has been provided to an adjudicator, or where wholly new evidence is discovered after a hearing.

12I can understand the Tribunal’s decision to confirm the suspension of A.D.’s licence has been very upsetting for him as it means he is no longer permitted to drive. However, A.D. does not show how the Tribunal’s decision was mistaken in any way.

13In reaching its decision, the Tribunal did consider the fact that A.D. has only a grade four education.

14The Tribunal considered a variety of reports and tests, not just the test of Dr. Marion that A.D. complains about. All the medical and functional reports indicated a cognitive impairment that would be likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

15As the Tribunal’s decision explains, even having failed cognitive tests, his doctors supported A.D. taking functional driving tests in 2012 and 2015 to give him the chance to show he could drive safely. Each of these functional tests showed that A.D.’s cognitive impairment was adversely affecting his ability to drive safely; both testers recommended that A.D. not be allowed to drive.

16For the reasons noted above, A.D. has not established that the Tribunal’s decision to confirm the suspension of his licence was mistaken because of any legal or factual error it made, any false evidence it received, or any new evidence.

ORDER

17Upon consideration of the submissions of A.D., without requesting submissions from the respondent, A.D.’s request for reconsideration is dismissed.