­­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: 2020-01-15

Tribunal File Number: 11847 MED

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:

Daniel Cooke

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member

Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Daniel Cooke, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent

Heard by teleconference: December 18, 2019

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview:

1The appellant appeals the November 16, 2019 suspension of his driver’s licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”). A physician reported to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) that the appellant had a psychiatric condition. Pursuant to s. 203(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), every prescribed person shall report to the Registrar any person 16 years of age or older who has or appears to have a prescribed medical condition, functional impairment or visual impairment that may make it dangerous for the person to drive.

2The Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the HTA due to the appellant’s psychiatric condition.

B. PRELIMINARY MATTER

3The appellant wrote a letter dated August 22, 2019 stating he is no longer under any type of psychiatric care and therefore there is no treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner that could provide the information the Registrar requires.

4At the beginning of the hearing the Tribunal asked the appellant if he would like to have an adjournment of the hearing so that he could obtain a new physician to provide the information requested by the Registrar. The appellant said he did not require an adjournment and the hearing proceeded.

C. ISSUE:

5The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition, specifically a psychiatric condition, 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 have a psychiatric condition?

(b) Is the appellant’s medical condition, specifically a psychiatric condition, if any, likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

D. CONCLUSION:

6For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellant has a medical condition, specifically a psychiatric condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. Accordingly, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

E. LAW:

7The 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).”

8One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA is that 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;

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”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding requirements.

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 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.

F. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

(a) Does the appellant have a psychiatric condition?

12As set out below, we find that the appellant has a psychiatric condition.

13By way of history, the Registrar received a medical report from Dr. Millis, a psychiatric resident at CAMH (“hospital”) dated October 29, 2014 which diagnosed appellant with “mental or emotional illness” and a reported dated May 11, 2015 from Dr. Johnson diagnosing “schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder”.

14The Registrar also filed a medical condition report dated November 3, 2018 from emergency room physician Dr. Travis diagnosing the appellant with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder. Dr. Johnson, the appellant’s psychiatrist at the hospital since 2014, completed a mental health assessment report dated April 24, 2019 in which he diagnosed schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder and wrote that “DL suspension is unnecessary”, confirmed medication had been prescribed for the appellant and it is reported that the appellant takes the medication. In response to a letter from the Registrar asking for confirmation of a three-month period of mental and emotional stability, Dr. Johnson wrote a letter dated July 15, 2019 giving information about the hospital and the appellant’s treatment but does not clearly state a time period of stability.

15Appellant admitted that he was treated at the hospital once a month for a period of two years and took the medication prescribed for him. He testified that Dr. Johnson is no longer his physician, that he stopped seeing Dr. Johnson in April 2019, that he currently has no physician, stopped receiving treatment at the hospital in April, 2019 and is no longer taking his prescribed medication. He filed a Notice of Termination of Community Treatment Order dated May 31, 2019 from Dr. Geagea at the hospital which confirmed that the appellant withdrew his consent to treatment. Appellant said that he is not schizophrenic and does not have any mental illness and the diagnosis at the hospital is wrong and arose out of a misunderstanding.

16We find based on the medical reports from the appellant’s psychiatrist Dr. Johnson and the report from Dr. Travis and the appellant’s admission that he attended at the hospital for treatment once a month for a period of two years and took the medication prescribed by his psychiatrist until he terminated his treatment in April, 2019, that the appellant has psychiatric condition.

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

17Appellant testified that he went to the hospital once a month for two years but he doesn’t have to go any more. He said that he is in perfect health and feels he can drive perfectly well.

18The Registrar submits that the appellant’s medical condition is severe enough that he should not be permitted to drive. The Registrar’s position is that the appellant presents a safety risk at this time and that a period of three months stability should be demonstrated before his driving licence is reinstated. The Registrar relies on the guidelines contained in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers (the “Standards”) with respect to psychiatric disorder (chapter 14). Guideline 14.6.1 states that individuals with psychiatric disorder are eligible for a licence if:

• the condition is stable

• the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if condition becomes acute

• the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired

• a treating physician supports a return to driving, for drivers who have stopped driving due to a psychiatric disorder, and

• Conditions for maintaining a licence are met

19Based on this standard, the appellant would not be eligible for a licence. Although the Standards are not binding on the Tribunal, we are persuaded in this case that we should follow the Standards because the considerations set out in Guideline 14.6.1 are important to ensure that drivers do not present a safety risk to themselves or others while driving. The appellant has a history of mental or emotional illness and instability dating back to 2014. More importantly, Dr. Travis, an emergency room physician diagnosed the appellant with “…schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder” in a report dated November 3, 2018 as did Dr. Johnson in his mental health assessment dated April 24, 2019. Although Dr. Johnson, the appellant’s psychiatrist since 2014, wrote in his April 24, 2019 report that “…DL suspension is unnecessary…”, he is not clear in his report about the stability of appellant’s medical condition. In his letter dated July 15, 2019 Dr. Johnson also does not confirm a time period of stability. The appellant testified that Dr. Johnson is no longer his physician, that he stopped seeing Dr. Johnson in April 2019, that he currently has no physician, is no longer receiving treatment at the hospital and is no longer taking his medication. Dr. Geagea confirmed that the appellant withdrew his consent to treatment in the Notice of Termination of Community Treatment Order dated May 31, 2019 filed by the appellant. As a result, at this time there is insufficient evidence that appellant’s mental condition is now stable, and that any treating physician currently supports a return to driving. There is no report from a physician specializing in mental health or other mental health specialist confirming appellant’s condition is stable.

20We find based on the totality of the evidence that the appellant’s psychiatric condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely at this time and accept the respondent’s submission that a further period of demonstrated stability is reasonable keeping in mind public road safety.

G. ORDER:

21For 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.