Syed Usama Bin Saeed v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2020 CanLII 27357

Syed Usama Bin Saeed v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Date: 2020-02-21

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 s. 47(1) of the Act to Suspend a Licence

Between:

Syed Usama Bin Saeed

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Jennifer Friedland, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: By Teleconference, January 13, 2020

OVERVIEW

1The appellant is a 38-year-old man whose driver’s licence was suspended on October 7, 2019 for medical reasons pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”).

2The decision to suspend the appellant’s licence was made by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “registrar”) following the receipt of a medical report indicating that the appellant had experienced a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. The appellant’s family doctor subsequently identified the appellant as having alcohol dependence.

3By way of this appeal pursuant to s. 50 (1) of the HTA, the appellant asks the Tribunal to set aside the registrar’s decision to suspend his licence.

4By the time of the hearing, the appellant had abstained from alcohol for approximately 3 ½ months. He seeks to have his licence reinstated on the basis of his progress so far and because he is confident that he will not return to drinking.

ISSUES

5There are two issues on this appeal:

i) whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition – namely, seizures related to alcohol withdrawal, to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely; and

ii) whether the appellant is addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

Result

6For the reasons given below, we find that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the appellant, at this time, suffers from seizures from alcohol withdrawal likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

7However, we do find that he suffers from an addiction to alcohol likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

8Therefore, we confirm the registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence.

FACTS

9The facts relevant to this appeal are largely not in dispute and may be summarized as follows:

10On September 24, 2019, the appellant went to the emergency room with symptoms that were diagnosed as being from a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. The ER physician reported this diagnosis to the registrar pursuant to s. 203 of the HTA. As a result of the report, the appellant’s licence was suspended.

11The appellant had stopped drinking approximately two weeks prior to experiencing the seizure that resulted in the initial loss of his licence. In terms of his pattern of drinking previously, the appellant described that he had been a social drinker and drank beer and vodka, mainly on weekends. However, the lifestyle notes from his medical doctor state that he is an “at risk drinker” and consumed 6-7 drinks on some days. His doctor further confirms a diagnosis of alcohol dependence. The appellant described that he had gradually been trying to decrease his use of alcohol before stopping completely prior to his seizure.

12The appellant has done very well maintaining his sobriety. Medical tests and notes taken by his family doctor following appointments in October, November and December 2019 confirm that the appellant remains sober.

13By the time of the hearing, the appellant had been sober for approximately 3 ½ months.

14In terms of support in the community to maintain his continuing sobriety, the appellant stated that he no longer fraternizes with the friends with whom he used to drink, and his family does not drink at all. He has also attended some AA sessions, but does not attend regularly, as he finds the meetings inconvenient to get to without a car.

15In terms of more structured treatment, the appellant was referred by his doctor to an out-patient treatment program, but it was unclear whether he had either not been accepted or not yet applied at the time of the hearing. The appellant testified to being confident that he could remain sober on his own. He also relies on what he understands was the advice of his doctor that he does not necessarily need a structured program. On the other hand, he admitted that he has tried to quit drinking in the past, yet ultimately always relapsed. He acknowledged the possibility that treatment would assist him to stay sober.

16The appellant’s doctor is supportive of him working toward regaining his licence but states in his notes that he would need him “to be abstinent for 6 months minimum.”

17The appellant has not suffered any seizures since the initial withdrawal seizure in September 2019. However, his doctor did refer the appellant to a neurologist for follow up testing. This appointment had not yet occurred by the date of this hearing. In addition to the seizure related to alcohol withdrawal, the appellant had also suffered a brain injury the year prior after a fall.

The positions of the parties

18The registrar asks the Tribunal to rely on the medical standards for drivers established by the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) in upholding the appellant’s licence suspension. Under these standards, as applied to the appellant, he would have to abstain from alcohol for 12 months before being considered for a reinstatement of his licence. However, this period of sobriety could be reduced to 6 months if he were to successfully complete a structured treatment program and have the support of his doctor for reinstatement.

19The registrar did not rely on the seizures related to alcohol withdrawal as the basis for continuing the suspension and did not make submissions on the CCMTA standards regarding seizures.

20The appellant’s position is that he would prefer that his licence be returned earlier. He says he understands the guidelines but would benefit from being able to use his car for work. He also asks the tribunal to consider the fact that he did not lose his licence because of a criminal offence, such as impaired driving and that he has no history of driving under the influence of alcohol.

Law & Analysis

21The purpose of the licence provisions of the HTA is to “protect the public.” Section 31 (a) describes that one of the ways this is done is by ensuring that:

31(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely.

22Ontario Regulation 340/94 is a regulation made under the HTA that deals specifically with drivers’ licences. At section 14(1)(b) it specifies that:

14(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.

23The provision goes on to state that:

(2) In determining whether an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence of any class meets the qualifications described in subsection (1), the Minister,

(a) may take into consideration the relevant medical standards for applicants or holders of that class of driver’s licence set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers

24When a matter comes before the Tribunal, we are not obliged to apply the CCMTA standards, however they are persuasive, and we see no basis to depart from them in this case.

25The appellant is to be commended for making the decision to stop drinking. We also recognize the irony in the fact that his decision to do so then resulted in his having the seizure that resulted in the loss of his licence. Although we do not have evidence to conclude that he continues to suffer from seizures related to alcohol withdrawal, we cannot ignore the implications of that initiating fact. The appellant’s previous drinking was sufficient to have caused a seizure upon withdrawal from that substance. His family doctor also confirms a diagnosis of alcohol dependence and further notes a previous habit of up to 6-7 drinks a day.

26The appellant would likely benefit from a structured treatment program which might help him address the issues underlying his dependence on alcohol. He has not yet had the chance to take such a program. Although he is doing very well maintaining his sobriety, he has relapsed in the past. Were this to happen again, this could significantly interfere with his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.

27It is on the above basis that we find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant is addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We therefore confirm the registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence.

28The appellant is encouraged to follow the process outlined by the registrar in its letter dated December 23, 2019 in order to regain his licence and/or to continue discussions with the registrar in terms of whether an earlier re-instatement may be possible.

ORDER

29Pursuant to the powers of this Tribunal under s. 50(2) of the HTA, the registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.