S.D. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2019 CanLII 29124

Date: 2019-02-01

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:

S.D.

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Sandeep Johal, Member

Appearances: For the Appellant: S.D., Self-represented For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Heard by teleconference: November 19, 2018

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

Overview

1The appellant appeals the April 23, 2018 and September 26, 2018 confirmation of the suspension of his driver’s licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”).

2Pursuant to s. 203(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), all medical practitioners shall report every person who is at least 16 years old who, in the opinion of the medical practitioner, has or appears to have a prescribed medical condition, functional impairment or visual impairment.

3The Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence on May 3, 2018, under s. 47(1) of the HTA due to the appellant having a seizure and continued the suspension on September 26, 2018 until the Registrar receives information that the appellant has remained abstinent from alcohol for one year or six months if his physician confirms that he has successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of his driving privilege. The Registrar also requires results of recent bio-chemical markers (MCV, GGT) with a clinical explanation for any level outside the normal laboratory range, as well as confirmation of a six-month period of mental and emotional stability.

ISSUE

4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition, specifically seizures, alcohol dependency and mental and emotional stability, likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. In order to answer that question, we will address the following issues:

(a) Does the appellant suffer from seizures, have an alcohol dependency or is mentally and emotionally unstable?

(b) If the appellant does have a medical condition of seizures, alcohol dependency or mental and emotional instability is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

CONCLUSION

5For the reasons that follow, while we find that the appellant did suffer a seizure as a result of alcohol withdrawal, we do not that find it is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely because the seizure disorder which was caused by his alcohol withdrawal is stable and well controlled by medication. Further we do not find the appellant to be mentally and emotionally unstable. Accordingly, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

LAW:

6The 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. Paragraph (g) states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).”

7One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s. 47(1) (g) of the HTA is if the driver suffers from a medical condition or addiction 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;

8Section 14 of the Regulation requires a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely and that the Minister of Transportation can consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”).¹ Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding requirements.

9Under 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.

10The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

(a) Does the appellant suffer from seizures have an alcohol dependency or is mentally and emotionally unstable?

11As set out below, we find that the appellant has suffered from a seizure but it was related to alcohol withdrawal and this medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

12The Registrar filed several medical reports. In a Medical Condition Report dated April 12, 2018, Dr. M, an internal medicine specialist, diagnosed “seizure(s)-cerebral” and noted “seizure new onset-now on medication, stabilizing but not yet safe” As a result, the respondent sent a letter dated April 23, 2018 and suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence.

13The appellant’s family doctor completed an Epilepsy and Seizures form dated August 1, 2018 where it was noted that the appellant’s primary medical condition was Alcohol Drug Related and Pseudoseizure with the latest episode being 6-12 months ago. The type of seizure was check marked as Simple Partial (no impairment in level of consciousness). His family doctor did not feel a further EEG test was required and nor did he feel a further imaging test was required (e.g. CT scan or an MRI).

14The appellant’s family doctor further states in the August 1, 2018 form that etiology of the seizure was Provoked Seizure with no Structural Brain Abnormality (e.g. due to a toxic illness, trauma or medication induced). The patient is noted to be adhering to the recommended treatment regimen and the provoking factor has stabilized, resolved or been corrected. He concludes that the condition was alcohol related and the appellant has not been drinking in more than six months.

15The appellant’s family doctor completed a Substance Use Assessment form dated September 15, 2018,² where he notes again that the appellant had a seizure as a result of alcohol withdrawal and in section B of the form that the seizure was as a result of alcohol withdrawal and there is no diagnosis of substance dependence or substance abuse.³

16As a result of the above, we find that the appellant did suffer from a single episode of a seizure as a result of alcohol withdrawal, however his seizures are now under control as a result of medication and the appellant being alcohol free for 6-12 months.

(b) Does the appellant suffer from mental and emotional instability?

17The respondent submits that the appellant has mental and emotional instability as a result of a visit by the appellant to the [Hospital] on April 2, 2018 and the notes of that visit that was sent to the appellant’s family doctor.⁴ Dr. M. from the [Hospital] notes that the appellant was “significantly agitated, requiring hard restraints on the floor”.⁵ However the appellant testified that this was a result of medication that was provided that did not react well with the medication he was already taking and once he was taken of that medication, he no longer had any issues. This was confirmed in the note from Dr. M. at the [Hospital].⁶

18The Mental Health Assessment Form confirms that there are no side effects such as, sedation or psychomotor slowing, impairment or concentration/attention, impairment of judgement or blurred or double vision as a result of the prescribed medication.⁷ On page 93 of the same form it notes that the appellant does not have difficulties with cognition, attention, memory or judgement, and that the appellant has been prescribed medication that does not impair his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

19His family doctor, Dr. F. sets out in the form that he appellant is under medical supervision varying from 2-3 months to 4-6 months and in his opinion the appellant has the appropriate insight/sufficient understanding of his/her medical condition and the impacts on their functional ability to drive.⁸

20As a result of the above, we do not find the appellant to have a mental or emotional instability.

(c) Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

21We find that although the appellant did suffer from a seizure, which was as a result of his alcohol withdrawal, we find this medical condition is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive as his medical condition is controlled by medication and from being alcohol free for 6-12 months as well as for the following reasons.

22On September 13, 2018 Dr. F. completed a Cerebrovascular Diseases Traumatic Brain injury/Tumor or Mental Health Assessment and the Substance Use Assessment Form (the “SUA”) sent to the respondent on September 18, 2018.⁹

23In the SUA Dr. F. states that the applicant’s seizure was alcohol withdrawal and his last seizure was 6-12 months ago. Dr. F. concludes that the appellant does not suffer from substance dependence or substance abuse.¹⁰ In part 3 of the SUA Dr. F. states that the current medication regimen does not result in any of the side effects that may impair the patient’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.¹¹

24In accordance with the medical evidence from the applicant’s family doctor, Dr. F., we find that the appellant’s seizure disorder was a result of alcohol withdrawal and that he is not dependent on alcohol and is not mentally and emotionally unstable. We therefore conclude the appellant does not have a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

ORDER

25For 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.

Footnotes

1. 1Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation
2. 2Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 85.
3. 3Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 87
4. 4Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 55.
5. 5Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 55.
6. 6Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 55.
7. 7Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 88.
8. 8Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 93
9. 9Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 83.
10. 10Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 87.
11. 11Respondent Medical File Evidence Exhibit 3 at page 88.