Peter Strik v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2020 CanLII 27388

Date: 2020-03-24

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 that Act – to suspend a licence

Between:

Peter Strik

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Mr. Peter Strik, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Mr. Kyle Beal, Agent

Place and Date of Hearing: Teleconference - March 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 drivers licence because the appellant suffers from alcohol withdrawal seizures and substance abuse disorder. The appellant was notified of the suspension by a letter from the Registrar dated November 26, 2019.

B. ISSUE

2The legal issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically, alcohol withdrawal seizures and substance abuse disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

C. CONCLUSION

3For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal affirms the decision by the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence.

D. LAW

4The Registrar has the power under s.47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any grounds listed in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section. Paragraph (g) states that a licence maybe suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e), or (f).”

5One 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.

6Subsection 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 enacted under the HTA 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.”

7Section 14(2)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 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 Minister of Transportation or on this Tribunal.

8The 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.

9Pursuant 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 ANALYSIS

10The Registrar outlined the legislation that allowed the ministry to suspend the to suspend the licence.

11The Registrar received an unsolicited medical condition report dated November 19, 2019 from Dr. Robert Cambridge, a physician who was treating Mr. Strik. This report noted Mr. Strik had an alcohol withdrawal seizure while in the Orillia Hospital. In response to this unsolicited report, the Registrar issued a letter on November 25, 2019 suspending Mr. Strik’s driving privileges. This letter included a substance use questionnaire.

12On December 6, 2019, the Registrar received a completed substance use questionnaire from Dr. Michael Ives, Mr. Strik’s family doctor. This form noted the alcohol withdrawal seizure and also noted a severe substance use disorder (alcohol). This form also noted elevation of the MCV and GGT (blood tests that indicated chronic excess consumption of alcohol).

13The Registrar also received a copy of the AUDIT (Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test). This test was performed by Dr. Ives. The test score was 23 and on this test a score greater than 20 is suggestive of dependence (addiction). This test was performed on December 6, 2019.

14On January 7, 2019, the Registrar sent a letter to Mr. Strik indicating they had reviewed the reports sent in by Dr. Ives and that his driving privileges would remain under suspension. It noted that his driver’s licence would remain under suspension until he had remained seizure free and abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year. It noted the period could be reduced to six months if there was evidence of completion of a treatment program and supportive evidence from his treating doctor and evidence of normalized blood testing.

15A letter from Dr. Ives to the Registrar dated February 4, 2020 indicated that Mr. Strik’s blood markers GGT and MCV had returned to normal. The letter also noted Mr. Strik had taken steps to manage his alcoholism. He had reduced his alcohol intake down to 2 light beers a day, and after the case conference on January 23, 2020, he was totally abstinent from alcohol.

16On March 4, 2020, the Registrar sent a notice to Mr. Strik that his licence remained suspended and the conditions to remove the suspension remained the same.

17A Notice of Appeal was sent to the Tribunal on December 4, 2019 which included a letter of support from Ms. Lisa Doherty.

18Ms. Lisa Doherty, Mr. Strik’s partner, testified as a witness for Mr. Strik. She noted the improvement Mr. Strik had made since his alcohol withdrawal seizure. On questioning by the Registrar, she testified that she had witnessed a previous seizure as well as the one she witnessed in the Orillia Hospital.

19The Registrar pointed out that both Dr. Cambridge and Dr. Ives confirmed the diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal seizure.

20The Registrar pointed out the dangers of driving while under the influence of alcohol, as well as the dangers of having a seizure while driving.

21The Registrar drew our attention to the Recommendations of the CCMTA standards regarding driving privileges involving people with alcohol withdrawal seizure as well as in people with severe substance abuse disorder. He drew our attention to 15.6.3 of the CCMTA standards which recommend that people with substance abuse disorder be abstinent from that substance for a period of one year. That term may be 6 months if they have taken part in a recognized treatment program.

22The Registrar pointed out that while Mr. Strik has made a lot of improvements, he has only been alcohol free for a period of six weeks which is not long enough to be sure he will continue to abstain or be sure he will be seizure free. The Registrar pointed out that testimony revealed Mr. Strik had been a heavy drinker since the age of 35, consuming 10 to 15 ounces of whiskey every night. Testimony from the appellant confirmed, prior to the last 6 weeks of sobriety, 2 weeks had been the longest time he had been abstinent. The Registrar argues that the suspension should remain in place for a longer period of time in order to be sure that the conditions are under control.

23Mr. Strik admits that he has had an alcohol problem and that he had a seizure in the Orillia Hospital. He believes that the seizure occurred because the attending doctor refused to give him any valium or Ativan in order to prevent a withdrawal seizure. He admits that in the past he would use alcohol or valium to self-medicate and stop the shakes and other symptoms of alcohol withdrawal. Mr. Strik testifies “I was an alcoholic and alcohol makes you blind”. He notes that the hospitalization in Orillia was a turn-around for himself and he is feeling so much better since he has abstained from alcohol.

24Mr. Strik testified he had reduced his drinking and since January 23, 2020 has totally abstained. He testifies he feels much better and plans not to return to alcohol.

25Mr. Strik testified he has taken steps to stay away from alcohol. He has an alcohol-free home and has support from his friend Ms. Doherty, who is a non-drinker. He is willing to attend counselling or an alcohol program although this has not been started. He acknowledges his family doctor has recommended counselling.

26Mr. Strik testifies that he has a perfect driving record and that he never drinks and drives. He also gives evidence that he takes high blood pressure medications and has never used street drugs. In response to questions by the Registrar he admits that he would in the past self-medicate with valium when he had the shakes. He testifies he does not use valium or any other mood-altering medication at this time.

27Mr. Strik points out that his blood tests have returned to normal and Dr. Ives reports that he is doing better.

28The Registrar pointed out the dangers of seizures while driving as well as the dangers of the use of alcohol while driving and explained the Registrar felt that not enough time had passed to demonstrate that either condition was controlled.

29The Registrar agreed that progress had been made but felt that more time was needed to be certain that the conditions were definitely under control. The Registrar conceded the blood test markers had returned to normal and that the only issue was the length of time that Mr. Strik had been abstinent from alcohol and documentation that he remained seizure free.

30Mr. Strik’s testimony speaks to the improvement he has made in his control of his drinking. His family doctor has noted the improvement of his blood work and he also speaks to the reduction in alcohol consumption since the seizure, and the absence of alcohol since January 23, 2020.

31Mr. Strik pointed to the improvement he had made in the last few months as well as his good driving record and felt that the Tribunal should return his licence now. He felt that waiting a year would be excessive.

F. CONCLUSION

32Based on the evidence presented, and on a balance of probabilities, I find that the appellant has the condition of alcohol withdrawal seizure as well as substance abuse disorder (alcohol), and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. I accept the Registrar’s submission that not enough time has passed to be satisfied the danger due to seizure recurrence or the resumption of consuming alcohol may not occur. I take note of the CCMTA recommendations and while they are not the law, they are useful guidelines. They recommend a period of a year of abstinence or 6 months with an alcohol treatment program as well as a period of one year seizure free. The appellant’s 6 weeks of abstinence falls far short of that recommendation.

33Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence.