Licence Appeal Tribunal
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:
Roch Joanisse Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Stéphanie Kepman, Member
Appearances: For the Appellant Roch Joanisse, Self-Represented Appellant Melanie Joanisse, Appellant’s daughter For the Respondent: Sonia DeSantis, Agent for the Registrar Interpreter (French) Jean-Claude Falerton
Held by teleconference: August 22, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1The appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended after an emergency room physician filed a medical condition report with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, dated May 11, 2019. Physicians and other health care practitioners are, pursuant to section 203 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), required to report any person older than sixteen who is suffering from a prescribed condition which may make it dangerous for the person to drive.
2The medical condition report indicated that the appellant had the condition of substance use disorder (alcohol). As a result of the report, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the HTA, effective June 04, 2019.
RESULT
3For the reasons set out below, we find that the appellant does not suffer from an addiction to alcohol which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
ISSUE
4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from alcohol dependence, also known as alcohol addiction, and if so, whether it is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
LAW
5The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any of the grounds listed in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section. Clause (g) states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f)”, which can include that the driver suffers from a medical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) under the HTA states:
(1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not,
a. suffer from any mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely;
b. be addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely;
6According to s. 14(2)(a) of the Regulation, if the Minister of Transportation is determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met, the Minister may take into consideration the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”), which are published by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding requirements.
7The Registrar has the burden to establish the grounds for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the Act, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
(a) Does the appellant suffer from alcohol dependence?
8The Registrar took the position that the appellant’s licence suspension was based on a May 11, 2019 medical report it received from Dr. Chagnon. It advised the Tribunal that the appellant’s licence had been previously suspended for alcohol dependence, and then reinstated in March of 2019.
9The appellant does not deny he suffers from an alcohol dependence. During his testimony, he was honest about his addiction. He told the parties about his personal circumstances leading up to his relapse. He testified that he suffered from an alcohol relapse on May 04, 2019. This resulted in a hospitalisation and his licence suspension.
10As a result of this, the appellant has been in treatment at Maison Fraternité, a francophone, residential addiction facility, since late May of 2019. The appellant told the Tribunal that he wanted to address his mental health and alcohol addiction, which he admits is serious. While at Maison Fraternité, he has been subject to blood alcohol screening via bio-chemical marker testing, random breathalysers and regular supervision.
11He told the Tribunal that he has made personal changes in his life to ensure his continued sobriety such as moving to another city and separating from his wife. He continues to reside at Maison Fraternité, a rehabilitation facility, on a voluntary basis and will be ending his treatment at the end of August 2019.
12Following this, he will be moving into long-term care at a faith house for one year. Therefore, it is evident that the appellant does suffer from an alcohol dependence. The Tribunal must now determine if the appellant’s alcohol dependence likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
(b) Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?
13The Registrar has the burden to establish that the appellant’s alcohol dependence will interfere with his ability to drive safely.
14The Registrar submits that the appellant’s addiction is severe enough that he should not be permitted to drive at this time. The Registrar relies on the guidelines contained in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”) with respect to substance abuse or dependence (chapter 15).
15Chapter 15 of the CCMTA Standards states that individuals who are under the influence of alcohol are at a higher risk for adverse driving outcomes.
16Guideline 15.6.3 states that an individual who is under the influence of alcohol is eligible for a licence if he or she:
- Meets the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.
- Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction’s specialist and/or treating physician and successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program
- The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
- Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows the functional abilities for driving are not impaired
17Based on the appellant’s current progress, the Registrar offered to lower the waiting period to 6 months. Based on this standard, the appellant would not be eligible for a licence until November 04, 2019.
18The appellant requests that the Tribunal consider waiving this waiting period based on his past, current and future progress in addressing in alcohol addiction. The appellant has taken responsibility for his actions beginning May 04, 2019.
19He argues that he has abstained from alcohol since his relapse in May of 2019. He has been seeking psychiatric treatment at Montfort and will begin a new program of treatment there soon while he continues to liven a rehabilitation facility. The facility offers the applicant many supports, such as counselling, group meetings, and regular alcohol testing. The applicant also faces strict rules in terms of alcohol use, facing removal from the rehabilitation facility should he relapse.
20He testified he wants to address his depression and feels that working will assist with this. The appellant is able to work while residing at the rehabilitation facility. He felt that being able to work would allow him to help his self-worth by being able to contribute to society.
21The appellant requests the reinstatement of his licence so he can reintegrate into the community. He lives and works in a rural area. The appellant requires his vehicle to drive his tools to his job sites as a carpenter. He also told the Tribunal he would not be a danger to the community.
22His daughter testified that she believes that reinstating the appellant’s licence will ultimately help with his well-being. This is based on his continued success in his rehabilitation programming and personal testimony. The Tribunal accepts this, as both the appellant and his daughter were credible witnesses. The appellant has been honest and forthcoming in terms of his path to sobriety, as has his daughter.
23The respondent argues that the appellant has not abstained from alcohol for 6 months and it would not be willing to reinstate his licence sooner. It also argues that the appellant’s rehabilitative treatment is still ongoing and not completed at the time of the hearing.
24The applicant provided his bio-chemical maker testing, demonstrating that he has been abstinent from drugs and alcohol since his relapse on May 04, 2019.
As set below, we find that based on the parties’ submissions, the appellant’s licence could be safely reinstated after a period of 4-months of abstinence and bio-chemical marker testing. This is based on subsection 14(1) of the Regulation and the appellant’s low safety risk to the community.
25The risk of the appellant relapsing and driving under the influence of alcohol is low because of his ongoing counselling, system of supervision and random breathalysers through his voluntary residential treatment at Maison Fraternité. His future, long-term residence will continue to provide him with the necessary tools and structure to ensure that he continues his path to sobriety.
26We find that based on the balance of probabilities, the appellant has put in place the safeguards necessary to ensure that his ongoing battle with alcohol addiction is acknowledged, managed and addressed. This is demonstrated by the appellant’s consistency with following alcohol rehabilitation treatment. He is involved in Alcoholics Anonymous (“AA”), residential treatment, and psychological treatment and voluntarily opted to continue residing in a residential facility with all the safeguards as outlined above. He told the Tribunal he has every intention of continuing his treatment and presented as credible.
27Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the appellant’s alcohol dependence will not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle.
CONCLUSION
28The appellant’s licence will be reinstated.
ORDER
29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is set aside.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Stephanie Kepman, Adjudicator
Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Adjudicator
Released October 04, 2019