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 that Act - to Suspend a Licence.
Between:
J.E.
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
ORDER
Panel: Peter Savage, M.D., Member
Joanne E. Foot, Member
Overview:
1The issue to be determined at the teleconference hearing on February 6, 2018 was whether the appellant, J. E., suffered from a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment, to an extent likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.
2The appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended by letter dated June 26, 2015. The notice of appeal regarding the suspension was filed with the Tribunal on October 20, 2016.
3There have been significant delays in bringing this matter to a hearing, with numerous adjournments of pre-hearings, case conferences and hearings during the period from November 2016 to December 2017.
4A Request for an Adjournment dated December 11, 2017 was filed with the Tribunal. This was granted by Order dated December 19, 2017, in which Order the Tribunal expressed concern about the number of adjournments granted in the case and the fact that over 400 days had elapsed since the commencement of the appeal. The hearing was marked peremptory on the appellant and rescheduled to February 6, 2018.
5The hearing was attended by J.E., the appellant, by G.C., a social worker who is the representative of the appellant (and who indicated that he might give evidence should the need arise) and by Ms. Sonia De Santis, the Agent for the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Agent”).
6At the outset of the hearing, the Agent raised that the appellant’s driver’s licence had been temporarily reinstated on December 19, 2017. This was not a full reinstatement of the driver’s license, but rather one that was valid for “rehab eval only”. The Agent explained that this was intended to permit the appellant to take the driver lessons that had been recommended in the functional assessment she took on October 25, 2017.
7The appellant indicated that she had not yet commenced these driving lessons owing to the severe winter conditions that had existed, for the most part, from the date of the temporary reinstatement.
8The Agent indicated that the temporary reinstatement would expire on April 1, 2018. The appellant told us she felt confident that she would be able to complete the course of lessons and a further functional assessment prior to that date.
9The Agent drew to our attention the statement in the October 25, 2017 functional assessment that the appellant’s driving skills deficits could be attributed to the fact that she had not driven for more than three years following her car accident in November 2014.
10The Agent stated that if the appellant were to take the prescribed driving lessons and pass a further functional assessment, the Ministry of Transportation would reinstate her driver’s licence.
11The Agent confirmed that she would be unable to support the permanent reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence in the absence of the driving lessons and further functional assessment. The Agent also expressed doubt as to whether proceeding with the hearing was the best approach.
12We identified that the information contained in a further functional assessment would be relevant to the decision of the Tribunal and agreed that proceeding with the hearing might not be the most fruitful course of action at this time.
13We explained to the appellant that she had three options in these circumstances, and outlined the options as follows:
a. She had the right to proceed with the hearing immediately;
b. She had the right to bring a motion to further adjourn the hearing until after the completion of the driving lessons and the further functional assessment; or
c. She had the right to withdraw the appeal, it being understood that upon any further suspension of her driver’s licence, she would be able to commence a fresh appeal with the Tribunal.
14The Agent, very helpfully, emphasized to the appellant that a withdrawal of the appeal would not mean an end to the assistance offered by the Ministry of Transportation regarding the permanent reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence. The Agent stated that she would continue to work with and assist the appellant to this end.
15We asked the appellant and her representative if they had any questions about the options and emphasized that the decision as to how to proceed, that is, which option to select, was required to be made by the appellant.
16The appellant and her representative withdrew from the teleconference hearing for a short period of time to discuss and consider the options. Upon their return to the hearing, G.C. questioned the difference between an adjournment and a withdrawal. Following our explanation, G.C. indicated that they had decided to withdraw the appeal.
17We asked the appellant if that was her decision and she confirmed that she wished to withdraw the appeal.
18We indicated our acceptance of the withdrawal of the appeal and that the file would be closed, wishing the appellant well with her driving lessons and thanking the Agent for her helpful approach to the matter.
order:
19The Tribunal orders that this file be closed as of the date of this order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
____________________________
Peter Savage, M.D., Member
____________________________
Joanne E. Foot, Member
Released: February 22, 2018