P.R. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2018 CanLII 52326

Date: 2018-04-20

File Number: 11205/MED

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 pursuant to section 47(1) of the HTA to Suspend a Driver’s Licence.

Between:

P.R.

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Appellant

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Peter Savage, M.D., Member Harriet Lewis, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: P.R., Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference March 22, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW:

1The appellant P.R. is a 43-year-old professional accountant who previously had his driver’s licence suspended for one year in late 2015 due to alcohol dependence and a suspected alcohol-related seizure. He engaged in a treatment program and counselling and his licence was reinstated in June 23, 2016. He abstained from alcohol from late 2015 until a 3-day period of “binge” drinking in late November 2017.

2At that time, he had his father drive him to the hospital emergency department for treatment of hiccups. The emergency room physician, Dr. S.R., provided a Medical Condition Report to the Ministry of Transport (MTO), indicating alcohol dependence. As a result, P.R.’s driver’s licence was again suspended for one year, effective December 6, 2017.

3On January 31, 2018, the Registrar wrote to P.R. to confirm the suspension for a one-year abstinence period but indicating the period could be reduced to six months upon receipt of clear bio-medical markers and “if your physician confirms that you have successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of your driving privilege.” On February 9, 2018 P.R. filed this appeal from that decision.

4On March 19, 2018, the Registrar wrote to P.R. advising that upon confirmation that he has remained abstinent for six months, his case would be reviewed and a determination made as to whether his licence could be reinstated.

5For the reasons that follow, we set aside the Registrar’s decision and order that the appellant’s licence be reinstated.

B. Preliminary Issues:

6At the outset of the hearing, the agent for the Registrar experienced technical difficulties, necessitating an adjournment. There were no other preliminary issues.

C. ISSUES:

7The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant is addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

D. EVIDENCE:

8There is no disagreement as to the facts leading up to the December 2016 suspension of P.R.’s licence nor of the evidence which led to his licence being reinstated in June of that year.

The Appellant’s Evidence:

9The appellant is a Certified Professional Accountant and Certified Financial Analyst with a graduate degree in business. He is employed as an executive with a company that does work for a number of global hedge funds. His normal work day can reach twelve hours and the work can be very stressful. The company is closing its local office and moving its operations to another municipality this autumn. While P.R. does not believe his employment is precarious, he will be required to commute to the new location when the move takes place, a fact which has recently caused stress as have some other family issues.

10He is a divorced father of two teenage children and shares custody of and responsibility for the children with his ex-wife. The children reside with him on alternate weeks. They are involved in hockey and baseball and he is expected to and wishes to take them to these activities.

11He is in a stable long-term relationship with his fiancé and although they do not currently live together, they are planning to merge their households in the next short while.

12Although his own parents are divorced, he remains close to each of them and relies on them and his fiancé for emotional support.

13Since his first licence suspension, and but for his recent relapse, he has maintained a healthy and alcohol-free lifestyle. He enrolled in and completed a series of individual addiction counselling sessions with St. Mary’s Counselling Service, followed by a nine-session weekly Relapse Prevention Group. Following that he began attending the Aftercare Group at St. Mary’s and was involved with that group at the time of his relapse. He has subsequently continued with the group and was scheduled to complete the sixteen sessions as of March 8, 2018.

14His relapse began after a particularly difficult day at work, and was exacerbated by work and family stress. He drank at home over a weekend, ordering alcohol on-line for delivery. He estimates that he had ten or twelve drinks a day over the two or three-day period. He was unable to sleep and developed a persistent, severe, case of hiccups, which he testified was a “wake up call.” As his family physician was not available, he asked his father to take him to the emergency room at the local hospital where he was seen by Dr. R.S. who filed a Medical Condition Report with the Registrar, noting alcohol dependence.

15Filed in support of P.R.’s appeal is a Substance Use Assessment dated March 15, 2018, from Dr. M.D., his family physician since 2015. The report indicates “alcohol misuse” in reference to the relapse, rather than “alcohol dependence.” There was no recent seizure, and the last noted seizure-like activity was noted as being over twelve months previous and due to alcohol withdrawal. The assessment is accompanied by a lab report reflecting testing done as of March 8, 2018 and confirms that all biochemical markers are within normal laboratory range. Dr. M.D. writes that the appellant is “seizure free and medically fit to drive”.

The Respondent’s Evidence:

16The Registrar’s agent reviewed the appellant’s history going back to the licence suspension of 2015 and its reinstatement in 2017. She explained the background of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CMTA). She confirmed that the Registrar is relying on s. 15.6.3 of those guidelines which indicate an abstinence period of twelve months, which can be shortened upon a favourable recommendation from a treating physician and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

17The panel was referred to the Medical Condition Report Case Summary for this matter which, while it indicated a twelve-month suspension period, contained an alternate decision indicating a six-month suspension from November 17, 2017.

E. THE LAW:

18The Registrar has the power under s.47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason.

19In this case, the applicable reason is found in Ontario Regulation 340/94 under the HTA which states:

(1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver's licence must not,

(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.

20In determining whether a person meets the standard set by s.14(1) the Minister may, under s.14(2)(b) of the Regulation, require him or her to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. That evidence may include any reports of examinations that the Minister has required the person to submit to pursuant to s.15 of the Regulation.

21Paragraph 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s.14 (1) are met.

22The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration although they are not binding requirements. In this case, the respondent referred the Tribunal to s. 15.6.3 of the CCMTA; which, as noted above, recommends a twelve-month period of abstinence, but provides for earlier relicensing on a recommendation of a treating physician and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

23The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is set out in s. 50(2) of the HTA and allows the Tribunal to confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Minister.

F. ANALYSIS:

24The medical evidence in this case has confirmed that the appellant’s biomedical markers are normal, and his long-time physician has provided his opinion that P.R. is medically fit to drive and has classified his relapse as “misuse” rather than dependence.

25His answers to our questions were open and straightforward and we find him credible. He was the instigator of his treatment for alcohol dependence in 2015, and again upon the relapse which occurred approximately two years later. He is clearly further motivated by his responsibilities in respect to his children and to his work. He has family support from his parents and his fiancé.

26We were shown evidence of the appellant’s successful engagement in alcohol treatment programs and counselling resulting in a long period of sobriety broken by one short relapse. We have no evidence that he has a history of drinking and driving and we do not believe he is at significant risk of doing so in the future. We therefore do not find that he is addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

G. CONCLUSION

27For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant's driver’s licence is set aside.