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 section 47 (1) of the Act
Between:
Ping Yang Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicators: Dimitri Lavoush, M.D., Member; Zahra Dhanani, Member
Appearances: For the Appellant: Self-represented For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: August 9th, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION
Overview
1The appellant is a 48-year-old man who lives in Toronto, Ontario.
2The Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence on October 19, 2018 after receiving a mandatory reporting health report from the appellant’s neurologist Dr. Joyce Tang.
3Dr. Tang reported that the appellant has a psychiatric condition: cognitive impairment, that would interfere with his ability to drive safely.
4The appellant appeals this suspension.
ISSUES
5The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely. In order to answer that question, we will address the following issues:
a. Does the appellant have a medical condition?
b. If a medical condition is proven, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?
RESULT
6We find that the appellant has a medical condition that will interfere with his ability to drive safely and we confirm the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant’s license.
LAW
7The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act” or the “HTA”) to suspend a driver’s licence for a “sufficient” reason.
8One such sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act is 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:
14(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…
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”) in determining whether an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence of any class meets the qualifications. We may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding on us.
10Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister may also require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely. The Tribunal may consider whether a driver has complied with such a request.
11The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending the driver’s licence on a balance of probabilities.
12Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.
ANALYSIS
Does the appellant suffer from a particular medical condition:
13In this case, the appellant’s doctor confirmed that the appellant has cognitive impairment.
14The appellant testified that he had brain surgery over ten years ago and he continues to suffer from complications. The appellant did not provide any evidence that he no longer suffers from cognitive impairment.
15We find that the appellant does have a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment as confirmed in the health report provided by Dr. Tang.
Does or will this medical condition significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive:
16The appellant’s appeal was based on the grounds that the driving test authorities said that he was not fit to drive because they were discriminating against him. There was no evidence provided to support this allegation other than the appellant’s testimony which was just to say that he was discriminated against without any supporting facts.
17The appellant insisted he is a safe driver and he wants his driver’s licence so that he can drive to work three days of the week.
18The Registrar submitted that the appellant is not able to drive because of his medical condition.
19The appellant wrote to the Ministry of Transportation (“MTO”) several times requesting that his licence be reinstated. He also asked his neurologist and general practitioner to write to the MTO requesting the same. Despite sending letters to the MTO, the doctors did not provide any evidence with respect to the appellant’s cognitive impairment issues, they did not mention it nor did they state if it would impact his driving.
20The MTO was not satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition was relieved enough to afford him the ability to drive safely. The MTO wrote the appellant requesting that his driving ability be tested at a rehabilitation centre with a certified occupational therapist as per recommendation of his specialist (neurologist) physician.
21The appellant completed this test at the Saint Elizabeth Driving Assessment Centre (“SEDAC test”) and the occupational therapist found that the appellant was not in a safe enough condition to drive and in fact suggested that the appellant cease driving completely. The examiner found that the appellant did not have steady control of the car, drove in the opposite direction of legal signs and had a deficit in functional driving skills.
22The occupational therapist who administered the SEDAC test recommended that the appellant “should not return to driving” and that even remedial training is not recommended because it would not rectify the appellant’s deficits.
23The report stated that it was clear that a “medical condition is impacting the client’s ability to drive safely, and he is not a candidate for training. It is hoped that he can remain active in the community with support from family, friends and community resources.”
24The appellant is separated from his family. The appellant reports that he does not get support from any counsellors, support programs, community programs or any other mental health specialist to support his current health condition.
25The only health care provider he reports seeing is his family physician.
26The appellant has not submitted any medical evidence to support his position. The evidence before us supports a finding that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is affecting his ability to drive safely.
27We found that the appellant did not demonstrate insight into his condition and was not very cognizant of the risks he posed while driving.
28We found that the SEDAC test report completed by a trained occupational therapist was credible, thorough, professional and very clear. We find that the appellant’s allegations that the assessment of his driving was the result of discrimination, in particular racism and language barriers, has no basis.
29Finally, the evidence before us indicates that the appellant’s cognitive impairment poses a risk to driving safely at this time.
CONCLUSION
30We find that on a balance of probabilities, the Registrar has established that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.
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 confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dimitri Louvish, M.D. Member
Zahra Dhanani, LL.M. Member
Released: November 28, 2019