Christopher Lorett v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2020 CanLII 27350

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2020-03-04

Tribunal File Number: 12405/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:

Christopher Lorett Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL:

Erica Weinberg, M.D., Member Avril Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Applicant:

Christopher Lorett, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Stella Velocci, Agent

HEARD:

By Teleconference on: January 29, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview:

1The appellant appeals the July 22, 2019 suspension of his Class AM commercial driver’s licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”). 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 alcohol use disorder after receiving a report from his family physician dated July 3, 2019.

B. ISSUE:

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition, specifically alcohol use disorder, 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 alcohol use disorder?

b) Is the appellant’s medical condition of alcohol use disorder, if any, likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

C. CONCLUSION:

4For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically alcohol use disorder, 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.

D. LAW:

5The 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).”

6One 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,…

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.

7Section 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.

8Under 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.

9The 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.

E. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

(a) Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

10As set out below, we find that the appellant has alcohol use disorder and that this medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

11The Registrar filed four medical reports from Dr. M., the appellant’s family physician since 2016, all of which diagnose substance use disorder - alcohol. The first of these reports dated July 3, 2019, records that the appellant works as a truck driver. In a substance use assessment form dated July 24, 2019 and the accompanying Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test, Dr. M. answers “no” to the question “To your knowledge, has the patient abstained from alcohol?”, recommends counselling, notes that the appellant has not successfully completed a treatment program or counselling, notes that his MCV level is elevated due to alcohol use and diseases affecting the liver, records that the appellant has five or more drinks daily or almost daily, has needed a drink in the morning daily or almost daily in the last year and has had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking daily or almost daily. In a substance use assessment form dated December 13, 2019, Dr. M. reports that the appellant has abstained from alcohol for less than six months and notes “Patient has elevated liver function testing but improving compared to before….” In a substance use assessment form dated January 3, 2020, Dr. M. reports again that the appellant has abstained from alcohol for less than six months but does note that the biochemical markers MCV and GGT are now within normal laboratory range. Letters were also filed from a local hospital out-patient counselling unit confirming the appellant had attended ten addiction counselling sessions on ten separate days, a six-hour educational group session between November 2019 and January 2020, plus had begun individual counselling sessions on December 9, 2019.

12The appellant testified that he had an appointment with Dr. M. in July, 2019 for an unrelated matter and that blood work was ordered. He stated that it was his day off work, he had someone drive him to Dr. M.’s office, but he did not tell Dr. M. that he had been drinking before the appointment. Dr. M. spoke with the appellant following receipt of his blood tests, which showed a significantly elevated blood alcohol level. The appellant said that Dr. M. recommended counselling for alcohol but he was being stubborn and was not ready at that time to attend counselling. At that time, the appellant said he owned his own truck, was under financial pressure, had gone through an unpleasant divorce in 2011 and used alcohol to relax after work, on his days off and to get to sleep. He admitted that his girlfriend had expressed concerned about his alcohol use. The appellant said he never drinks and drives.

13The appellant said that in early November, 2019, he was taken to the hospital by ambulance after he blacked out at home in the middle of the night when he went to the washroom. His girlfriend found him and had called 911. He said he had three or four drinks of alcohol before going to bed but admitted they were not normal size drinks. He did not know how much alcohol he consumed that night. At the hospital he was treated for several days with medication that he does not remember the name of and counselling for alcohol use was recommended.

14The appellant testified that he stopped drinking alcohol November 4, 2019 (while in hospital) and has not had any alcohol since he left the hospital. He has attended out-patient counselling at a hospital because that was his doctor’s choice. He has attended both group counselling sessions and to date three sessions with a private counsellor. He has changed his lifestyle, goes to the gym each day to exercise, does not drink any alcohol and is no longer under financial pressure now that he has sold his truck and his house. He is living with his mother and taking care of her. He said that his girlfriend and his four children have all been supportive. There is no alcohol in his mother’s home except beer which he does not like. He feels better, intends to continue with the counselling even if he gets his licence back and goes back to work and feels like he is headed in the right direction. The appellant said he had been seeing a liver specialist who has told him his liver is good now that he has stopped drinking alcohol.

15The appellant did not put forward any medical evidence that he does not have alcohol use disorder and admitted that he was a heavy drinker before the November 2019 hospitalization. We find, based on the totality of the evidence, including the reports of the appellant’s family treating physician and his admissions about his drinking that the respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has alcohol use disorder.

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

16The appellant testified that he feels he can drive safely, does not drink and drive and needs his commercial licence to drive for a living or alternatively to drive to other employment if he does not go back to driving a commercial vehicle.

17The Registrar submits that the appellant’s medical condition is severe enough that he should not be permitted to drive at this time. The Registrar relies on the guidelines contained in the CCMTA with respect to substance abuse or dependence (Chapter 15).

18Chapter 15 of the CCMTA Standards states that individuals who are under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs such as opioids, cocaine, amphetamines are at a higher risk for adverse driving outcomes.

19Guideline 15.6.3 states that an individual who is under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs such as opioids, cocaine, amphetamines is eligible for a licence if he or she:

• Meets the criteria for remissions and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.
• Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician and successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program
• The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
• Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows the functional abilities for driving are not impaired

20Based on this standard, the appellant would not be eligible for a licence. The appellant’s evidence does not establish that he has abstained from alcohol for 12 months. The appellant says he has abstained since November 4, 2019 which at the time of the hearing is less than three months. It is our opinion, given the known relapsing nature of alcohol use disorder, the fact that there is no evidence of a favourable recommendation for re-licensing from the appellant’s treating physician or any of his counsellors and that the appellant was driving a commercial vehicle prior to the suspension, that a further waiting period is warranted. Furthermore, the Tribunal is not bound by CCMTA Standards but in this case chooses to follow them given the appellant’s medical condition of alcohol use disorder.

21The appellant has admitted to consuming alcohol November 3, 2019 which led to his black out at home and his hospitalization. The appellant by his own admission continued to consume alcohol even though Dr. M had recommended counselling for alcohol use disorder in July 2019 and despite his licence being suspended. While we acknowledge and appreciate that the appellant has in the last few months sought counselling and has changed his lifestyle, we find based on the totality of the evidence that the appellant has alcohol use disorder to an extent that significantly affects his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely on a balance of probabilities at this time. There is no medical evidence to the contrary.

22We appreciate that the loss of a driver’s licence can have significant consequences for the individual affected, particularly in the case of a commercial driver’s licence. While we understand the appellant’s concerns about the practical challenges that result from a licence suspension, we must apply the provisions of the HTA and Regulations, keeping in mind the objective of ensuring public road safety.

23After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder and that this medical condition is likely to interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

F. ORDER:

24For 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.