Date: 2018-03-12

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:

R.M.

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Dr. Peter Savage, Member Marisa Victor, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stella Velocci and Sonia de Santis, Agents

Place and Date of Hearing: Teleconference February 22, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview:

1The appellant was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder following its onset in the fall of 2017. As a result of the manic episode he experienced, he was hospitalized twice, in October 2017 and November 2017. Shortly thereafter, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles suspended his driver’s licence on the basis of a psychiatric condition and substance use/abuse. The appellant appeals this decision.

2The Registrar agreed that the issue of substance abuse is withdrawn, and therefore the only medical condition at issue is the appellant’s psychiatric condition.

3After his release from hospital in November 2017, the appellant sought further treatment for his condition. At the time of the hearing, the appellant had experienced three months of stability, was being seen regularly by a psychiatrist, a psychologist, was being followed by his family doctor and had excellent family support.

4The question we had to determine was whether the appellant suffers from a mental condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

5For the reasons that follow, we find that the Registrar has not established that the appellant is affected by his mental condition to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

6Accordingly, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

B. ISSUES:

7The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a mental condition such that is it likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.

C. LAW:

8The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (HTA) to suspend a driver’s licence for a sufficient reason. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the Regulation) of the HTA states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from any mental condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive 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 on us.

10The CCMTA Standards at s. 14.6.1 states if a driver has a psychiatric disorder, which includes a bipolar condition, the standard for lifting a licence suspension includes the following:

a. The condition is stable;

b. The driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition becomes acute; and

c. The treating physician supports a return to driving.

11The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities.

D. EVIDEnCE AND Analysis:

12The relevant documentary evidence before the Tribunal consisted of the following:

a. Documents from Dr. M., a psychiatrist. following the appellant’s November involuntary hospital stay indicating the appellant was no longer a risk to himself, others or to property and that they did not anticipate his current condition to deteriorate. As a result, the Consent and Capacity Board cancelled the order which had found the appellant incapable of consenting to treatment for a mental disorder;

b. A medical condition report submitted by Dr. M., advising the Registrar of the appellant’s diagnosis of a mental condition;

c. The suspension of the appellant’s licence by the Registrar on Nov. 30, 2017 for a psychiatric condition and substance use/abuse;

d. A letter from Dr. B.C., the appellant’s psychiatrist, who has treated the appellant since Jan. 31, 2018, stating that the appellant’s mental disorder has resolved with the use of medication;

e. A mental health assessment form and substance abuse assessment form both dated February 16, 2018, were completed by the appellant’s psychiatrist, Dr. B.C., indicating no concerns with driving; and

f. A letter from the Registrar, dated February 20, 2018, advising that the respondent’s Medical Review Section had reviewed the appellant’s medical documents and was requesting a period of stability of six months together with a physician’s recommendation before lifting the licence suspension.

13It was agreed by the Registrar at the start of the hearing that the appellant was not diagnosed with a substance abuse condition and as a result the issue of substance abuse was withdrawn by the respondent. The appellant also testified that he has stopped using cannabis and understands that illicit drugs may be a factor in causing a manic episode. The hearing proceeded on the issue of a psychiatric condition only.

14The appellant testified in a clear and compelling way. He understood why his licence was initially suspended but felt he had done everything a reasonable person could do to seek treatment and understand his condition. The loss of his licence was aggravating his condition as it affects his ability to get back to work.

15The appellant testified that he was first hospitalized October 15 – 23, 2017 due to his manic state. His mother had convinced him to seek help. This was the first manic episode the appellant had ever experienced. He attributed the onset to extreme work stress together with significant lack of sleep.

16The appellant was readmitted to hospital from November 11 – 19, 2017. He stated that he believed that the second admission was due to the same manic episode that had not yet resolved, as opposed to a second manic episode.

17After his release from the hospital, the appellant’s family doctor, who was aware of his situation and had provided support and guidance, referred him to Dr. B.C.

18The appellant agreed that he has a psychiatric condition and the he is on appropriate treatment by his psychiatrist. The appellant’s psychiatrist had prescribed a new regimen of drug treatment, Latuda and Wellburtrin, which he found had less side-effects than previous medication and was assisting him in treating his condition. He testified he is compliant with his medication and currently takes no other medication or illicit drugs. The psychiatrist’s appointments had now been reduced to once a month as a result of his stability and compliance.

19He also sought treatment with a psychologist, Dr. B., at his own expense. He continues to treat the appellant twice a week.

20The appellant also testified about his family support and stable home situation. He stated that his mother was the person who had first convinced him to go to hospital and had become a substitute decision maker on his behalf, which he supported. He also had support from his sisters.

21The appellant testified that he had done research into his condition and was aware that he might suffer from further episodes in the future.

22The appellant also testified about his work. He is a freelance audio and video technician and freelance musician who works across the GTA. His work requires a vehicle in order to transport the equipment he needs for his job. His work life has been made very difficult as a result of his licence suspension.

23We find that the medical documentation is clear that the appellant suffers from a mental condition. The appellant was very candid in his discussion of his diagnosis, and the steps he has taken to learn about his disease and seek long-term treatment and care.

24The test the Tribunal must consider is whether the appellant’s mental condition affects his ability to drive safely. Although not binding, the CCMTA Guidelines provide guidance as to when a person suffering from a mental disorder should resume driving. We accept these guidelines.

25The CCMTA states that if the patient is stable, understands the risks of his disease, has the support a medical practitioner that his condition is stable and will seek treatment should his condition deteriorate, then the driver’s licence suspension should be lifted.

26Based on the evidence above, we find that the appellant has met all the requirements suggested by the CCMTA guidelines:

a. He was deemed stable in Nov. 2017 when released from the hospital and Dr. B.C. indicated he continued to be stable in February 2018. That is a period of three months of stability;

b. He has the support of Dr. B.C. to return to driving;

c. The appellant’s forthright testimony convinced us that he as significant insight into his condition and has done all he can to learn about bipolar disorder and seek treatment and support;

d. We believe the appellant has gained insight into his condition such that should he have another episode he will seek treatment and stop driving.

27The Registrar’s position mirrored the CCMTA Guidelines but asked for a period of stability of six months prior to lifting the licence suspension.

28We find that under the circumstances, the Registrar has not proven on a balance of probabilities that a period of 6 months of stability is required. The respondent has not met its burden to show that the appellant’s mental condition is such that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

29As a result, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend his licence on the basis of a mental condition.

E. CONCLUSION:

30After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant does not suffer from a mental condition that is likely to interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

F. ORDER:

31For 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.