Licence Appeal Tribunal

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario

Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario

Date: 2020-12-23

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 pursuant to section 47(1) of that Act

Between:

Eric Parr Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Eric Parr, Self-represented For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: December 9, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW

1This is an appeal from a decision of the respondent, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”), to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence because the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment. The appellant was notified of the suspension by a letter from the Registrar dated December 3, 2019.

B. ISSUE

2The legal issue to be determined is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically, cognitive impairment disorder, which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

C. CONCLUSION

3For the reasons that follow, I find that the appellant does suffer from a medical condition and, I find that the medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. The Tribunal confirms the decision by the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence.

D. LAW

4The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence “for any sufficient reason”.

5One such reason is found in s. 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) enacted under the HTA. It requires that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from “any…physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.”

6Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The CCMTA standards are not binding on the Registrar or on this Tribunal.

7The Registrar has the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that one or more grounds for suspending a driver’s licence has been made out.

8Pursuant to section 50(2) of the HTA, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

E. THE EVIDENCE and SUBMISSIONS

Registrar’s submissions

9The respondent submitted a number of documents. The respondent’s documents were under the seal of the Minister. As required by a combined operation of ss. 49 and 210(7) of the HTA, they were therefore admitted into evidence and accepted, absent evidence to the contrary, for the truth of their contents. I was also provided copies of the relevant legislation. The respondent then reviewed those documents beginning with those sections of the HTA that the Ministry relied upon to suspend the appellant’s class G licence.

10The documents show that the Registrar received an unsolicited medical report dated November 8, 2019 from Dr. S. Russell, a psychiatrist at the Ottawa hospital. This report stated the appellant had a mild to moderate cognitive function disorder. The report stated this disorder had been noted on an occupational therapy assessment. Dr. Russell indicated this condition caused significant deficits in working memory and executive thought process and difficulty with divided attention, solving problems and considering consequences. Dr. Russell went on to report she had spoken to the family doctor, Dr. Corrigan, who stated the police had made her aware that there were reports of erratic driving, yelling out the car window, and that the police interpreted these as psychotic behaviors.

11The Registrar sent a letter to the appellant on December 3, 2019, informing the appellant his licence was suspended. The letter noted the reason for suspension was cognitive impairment. The letter outlined the steps needed to be taken to allow possible reinstatement of the licence.

12The Registrar included a cognitive impairment questionnaire with this December 3, 2019 letter.

13On April 8, 2020 the appellant sent the Registrar a cognitive impairment questionnaire completed by Dr. Corrigan. Dr. Corrigan confirmed the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and noted the condition was stable with on-going symptoms and that the future course of the condition was unknown.

14Dr. Corrigan recommended a functional driving assessment.

15Dr. Corrigan added in her report, “36-year-old male with PKU (phenylketonuria: a genetic recessive disorder of protein metabolism) longstanding poor control and history of psychosis (paranoia) and admission to ROH (Royal Ottawa Hospital) in fall of 2019. Psychological testing from 2011 showed intellectual disability. PKU is now under better control and it is unknown how much of his cognitive changes can improve with lower PHE (phenylalanine) level. I feel he needs on road functional assessment”.

16The Registrar responded to the appellant’s medical reports in a letter dated June 15, 2020. The Registrar noted a functional driving assessment was needed before the Ministry could consider restoration of the G-class licence.

17The Registrar granted the appellant a temporary driver’s licence for November 12, 2020 to allow him to do the functional driving test. The appellant did not follow through and take the test.

18The Registrar reviewed the appellant’s driving record. He noted the record was perfect except for the suspension for medical reasons.

19The Registrar pointed out that the CCMTA consisted of a group of road safety experts from across Canada. The CCMTA made recommendations regarding the effect of medical conditions on the ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. The Registrar noted that the recommendations of the CCMTA were recommendations and not the law.

20The Registrar pointed out the danger cognitive impairment could present while driving. The CCMTA document outlines the dangers of cognitive impairment. The Registrar drew our attention to section 6.6.1., a general recommendation pertaining to cognitive impairment. This section recommended a functional driving assessment be undertaken when required.

Appellant’s evidence

21The appellant testified he was a safe driver and had a good driving record.

22The appellant testified that there was no evidence he was a bad driver and that the doctors had never witnessed him driving. He challenged the respondent to show proof of bad driving.

23The appellant testified the police had harassed him and were against him but he noted there had never been any charges laid against him.

24The appellant testified he felt the only reason his licence was being taken away was because he had PKU. He stated people could live normal lives with PKU if they followed the appropriate dietary protein restrictions.

25The appellant testified he was following the dietary recommendations needed to control his PKU and he was on no medications.

26On questioning by the respondent, the appellant stated that in the fall of 2019 he had spent two weeks in the psychiatric unit of the Royal Ottawa Hospital. He had been sent there by the doctor for “having a messy room.” He felt the psychiatrist Dr. Russell had no reason to take away his licence and had just “kicked him when he was down”.

27The appellant stated that he couldn’t take the functional driving test on November 12, 2020 because he did not have the money to afford the test fee. The appellant indicated he was still going to get the test done in the future when he could afford it.

28The appellant summarizes his position by stating that he is not good with words but there is no evidence that he is a bad driver. He further stated, “I have done nothing wrong and they can’t prove anything, and I just don’t get it”. The appellant further stated there was no reason to take his licence away, the process was not fair, and the police did not have any evidence against him and were “working with people who are out to get him”.

F. ANALYSIS

29Based on the medical evidence presented, the appellant’s testimony, and on a balance of probabilities, I find that the appellant does have a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment. In addition, I find on reviewing the evidence that this condition will likely, on a balance of probabilities, significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle.

30I accept the report of Dr. Russel as well as Dr. Corrigan’s opinion in the cognitive impairment questionnaire. This evidence sets out a diagnosis of cognitive impairment. Neither doctor can give a prognosis, and both note that the impairment is mild to moderate and is stable at this time.

31I accept both doctors’ concerns for potential risk to safe driving and certainly understand and accept Dr. Corrigan’s opinion that a functional driving test is needed to assess the effect of the cognitive impairment on the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

32I accept the appellant’s argument that he has a safe driving record and that there are no examples of dangerous driving brought forward by the respondent. However, the evidence from the doctors points to potential dangers and suggests that a functional driving test should be conducted in order to measure those potential risks.

33I do not accept the argument from the appellant that his licence is being suspended just because he has PKU. All the evidence for suspension from the respondent is based on the fact that the appellant has a diagnosed cognitive impairment. It is known that PKU effects people differently and PKU can lead to cognitive impairment.

34I accept the submissions of the respondent regarding the CCMTA standards, which outlining the dangers associated with cognitive impairment and driving. Further I accept the recommendation in 6.6.1 of the CCMTA guidelines that a functional driving assessment may be needed to show that the cognitive impairment does not affect the appellant’s ability to drive. I further note that s. 15(1.1) of the Regulation states that it is a condition of a driver’s licence that the holder submit to the examinations required by the Minister.

35Giving my finding that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely, I do not believe the appellant’s request for reinstatement can be further considered by the respondent until a functional driving assessment is completed by the appellant.

G. ORDER:

36Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence.