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 the Act to suspend a Driver’s Licence
Between:
M.M.
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Jeanie Theoharis, Vice-Chair
Written Submissions By:
For the Appellant: M.M., Appellant
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Overview
1The appellant, M.M., requests reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s decision dated October 4, 2018 confirming the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”), to suspend M.M.’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.
2The Registrar suspended M.M.’s driver’s licence on July 10, 2018, due to the reported medical condition of alcohol dependence. This decision was made under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”). The Registrar subsequently added a psychiatric condition as an additional reason for the suspension. On appeal, the Tribunal found that M.M.’s psychiatric condition of dysthymia (persistent depressive disorder) did not impact his ability to drive. However, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder and that this significantly interfered with his ability to drive safely. Accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s decision to suspend his licence.
3The appellant requests reconsideration on the basis that the Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have made a different decision had the error not been made, in accordance with Rule 18.2(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version I (October 2, 2017) (the “Rules”).
4Pursuant to s. 17(2) of the Adjudicative Tribunals Accountability, Governance and Appointments Act, 2009, S.O. 2009, c. 33, Sched. 5, I have been delegated responsibility to decide this matter in accordance with the applicable rules of the Tribunal.
5The appellant alleges that the Tribunal made two errors. First, the appellant argues that the Tribunal failed to make a required finding of alcohol addiction; and second, he argues that there was a lack of evidence of a significant interference with his ability to drive safely, and that the Tribunal incorrectly required the appellant to show that his ability to drive was not affected.
6The Registrar argues that the Tribunal should decline to proceed with the reconsideration because the request did not comply with Rule 18.2. Regarding Rule 18.2(b), the Registrar argues that the appellant has not identified any error of law or fact made by the Tribunal and that the appellant’s “further explanations, thoughts and theories about events that were discussed during the hearing do not demonstrate any error of fact by the Tribunal.”
7For the reasons that follow, I grant the appellant’s request for reconsideration and order a rehearing of the matter.
Analysis
Issue 1: Alcohol Addiction
8I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred by failing to find that the appellant suffered from an alcohol addiction. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) 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; or
(b) be addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
9The Tribunal made a finding under s. 14(1)(a) that the appellant suffered from “alcohol use disorder”. Unlike s. 14(1)(b), a finding under s. 14(1)(a) does not require an “addiction”, and therefore the Tribunal did not err by concluding that the appellant had “alcohol use disorder” rather than an alcohol “addiction”.
Issue 2: Burden of Proof
10I am satisfied that the Tribunal made a significant error of law by reversing the burden of proof such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made.
11In medical suspension appeals under s. 50 of the HTA, the burden is on the Registrar to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that (1) the appellant has a medical condition or addiction, and (2) it is likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely. Proof of a medical condition or addiction alone is not sufficient.
12The Tribunal’s reasons appear to incorrectly place the burden on the appellant to prove that his alcohol use disorder is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. I make this finding for several reasons.
13First, the Tribunal’s reasons do not explain how the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. There is no reference to any evidence or explanation linking the appellant’s alcohol use disorder to his driving. Not everyone with alcohol use disorder will be unfit to drive. Rather, each driver must be assessed individually with respect to whether their medical condition or addiction is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely. This assessment was not done.
14Second, the reasons refer to a psychiatrist’s opinion that the appellant’s driving is not affected by his psychiatric condition of dysthymia and social anxiety. The reasons state that “there is no evidence that this opinion extends to the patient’s alcohol use disorder”. While this reflects an absence of a medical opinion supporting the appellant’s return to driving, it does not constitute positive evidence that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. It does not assist the Registrar in meeting its burden.
15Third, the reasons state:
In conclusion, notwithstanding the tremendous efforts the appellant clearly has undertaken to address his underlying health issue, and the support he has been receiving from various sources, there remain some unanswered questions as to whether the appellant has his alcohol use under control. [Emphasis added.]
If the burden of proof is correctly placed on the Registrar, any unanswered questions should weigh in favour of the appellant.
16Finally, although the Tribunal considered the Canadian Council of Motor Transportation Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”), these are not a substitute for considering whether the condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.
17Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Tribunal made a significant legal error by reversing the burden of proof. Given the absence of any reference to evidence linking the appellant’s substance use disorder to his ability to drive safely, I am also satisfied that the result would likely have been different had the error not been made.
18Although I am satisfied that the result would likely have been different, I am not in a position to determine that result, given that I did not hear the evidence and I am not a legally qualified medical practitioner. Accordingly, a rehearing of this matter is required.
Order
19The reconsideration request is granted and a rehearing is ordered.
Jeanie Theoharis
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division