Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8, (HTA) from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to suspend the driving privileges of the appellant under subsection 47(1) of the HTA
Between:
DB
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Panel: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member Patricia Conway, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: DB, self represented
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, agent
OVERVIEW
1The appellant, D.B., requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision issued on December 4, 2019 following a hearing on October 21, 2019. The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s order suspending the appellant’s driver’s licence.
2This request is made pursuant Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. That rule requires that appellant establish one or more of the following grounds:
a. The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the Rules of natural justice or procedural fairness;
b. The Tribunal made a significant error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different decision had the error not been made;
c. The Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d. There is new evidence that could not have reasonably been obtained earlier and would have affected the result.
The appellant has not specified the grounds of his request, referring only to Rule 18.
ISSUE
3The issue for determination is whether, having regard to the appellant’s submissions and the respondent’s response submissions, the appellant has established one of or more of the grounds for reconsideration set out in Rule 18.2.
DECISION
4After considering all the submissions we find no grounds for disturbing the decision issued by the Tribunal on December 4, 2019.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
5The appellant asserts that the evidence provided by the psychiatrist (Dr. Ugwu) the Tribunal relied on in coming to its decision is wrong and untrustworthy and founded on an unexplained dislike for the appellant. The remainder of the appellant’s submissions for reconsideration are largely identical to the submissions he made during the hearing.
6The Tribunal must make its decision on the basis of all the evidence before it, bearing in mind that the onus is on the Registrar to prove its case. The Tribunal considered and weighed the appellant’s evidence provided at the hearing, together with Dr. Ugwu’s mental health assessment report before coming to a decision.
7The appellant chose Dr. Ugwu to prepare the mental health assessment report required by the Registrar in order to consider reinstating the appellant’s licence. The report states that the appellant was diagnosed as a schizophrenic, and that he was not compliant with his medication. As a result, he might have an episode during which he was not able consciously to control his actions. This would obviously affect his ability to drive safely.
8During the hearing, the appellant testified that he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia by three other physicians, in addition to Dr. Ugwu. The appellant appeared to agree with this diagnosis at the hearing. He also admitted that he was not compliant with his medication in the past. At the time of the hearing he was taking his prescribed medication but would soon run out of it and had no physician to prescribe more to him. He expressed no concern at all about this. The Tribunal concluded that he might again be non-compliant with his medications. He objected to the opinion stated by Dr. Ugwu. and his former physician that not taking his medication would affect his ability to drive safely. In his submissions for reconsideration the appellant’s objections to the decision of the Tribunal are in same vein.
9The appellant now denies that he has schizophrenia. However, this denial is not new evidence that could change the Tribunal’s decision. The appellant has not in his reconsideration request provided any new medical evidence respecting his mental health.
10It may be that the appellant’s new doctor has or will have a different diagnosis. In that case, the appellant is free to appeal his suspension to the Registrar on the basis of the new doctor’s mental assessment report. This was made clear to the appellant during the hearing.
11At present, however, there is no new evidence that would lead the Tribunal to modify its decision.
12The Tribunal is charged with protecting the public under the Highway Traffic Act, 2002. That consideration is paramount in the Tribunal’s deliberations.
CONCLUSION
13After careful consideration of the evidence and submissions of the appellant in this request for reconsideration, the Tribunal concludes that there are no grounds to modify the Tribunal’s decision and order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Dr. Isla McPherson
Chair
_________________________
Patricia Conway
Member
Released: February 20, 2020