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:
James Kewin
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
PANEL: Dr. Peter Savage, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Mr. James Kewin, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Ms. Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: March 25, 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 a psychiatric disorder. The appellant was notified of the suspension by a letter from the Registrar dated January 17, 2020.
B. ISSUE
2The legal issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically, psychiatric disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
C. CONCLUSION
3For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the respondent does suffer from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive and affirms the decision by the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence.
D. LAW
4The Registrar has the authority 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 police report from the Waterloo Regional police force dated November 5, 2019. This report was accompanied by a request for a review of driving ability due to their concerns regarding Mr. Kewin’s mental state. The police report described the Appellant being in an agitated state, yelling and screaming, exhibiting rapid mood swings, showing evidence of delusions, and having a lack of concern for how his condition might affect his ability to drive. The report went on to say he was taken to the Homewood Mental Health Centre for a mental health assessment.
12The Registrar sent a letter to the Appellant November 19, 2020 informing him of the request for a driver’s review and enclosed a medical exam and mental health questionnaire to be filled out by the appellants health care provider.
13On December 17, 2019 the Registrar received a completed mental-health questionnaire and medical examination form completed by Dr.Xu of the Homewood Mental Health Centre. The medical examination form indicated a history of psychotic disorders and also addictions. The Appellant’s judgement was classified as fair when on treatment. Under the category of emotional disorder, it indicated psychosis and drug habituation. In his hand-written comments Dr. Xu indicated the Appellant was admitted with (or in a state of) acute psychosis and mania associated with cannabis intoxication. He goes on to say he is stabilized in hospital on the drugs Abilify and Lithium. The mental health questionnaire indicated a diagnosis of bipolar or schizophrenia with a period of stability of less than 3 months. The assessment noted two or more hospitalizations in the last 12 months. The form indicated the appellant had missed his medication recently on one occasion while out on a pass. Dr. Xu noted at the end of the form that follow up would be with CAMH as an outpatient. Dr. Xu also included results of toxicology studies done December 15, 2020. These tests were all normal and showed no evidence of ongoing use of cannabis.
14On January 17, 2020, the Registrar sent a letter to the appellant indicating he had reviewed the reports sent in by Dr. Xu and that his driving privileges were suspended. The letter outlined the conditions that needed to be meet before the ministry would consider reinstating his driver’s licence. The conditions were confirmation of six months of mental and emotional stability, confirmation of compliance with treatment, confirmation of successful treatment or remission of condition, confirmation of improvement of condition and confirmation of improvement in judgement. The letter also included a substance use questionnaire which had to be completed by the appellant’s health care practitioner.
15On February 10, 2020 the appellant filed a notice of appeal with the Licence Appeal Tribunal. In the appeal he noted that his condition had improved and he met all the conditions requested by the respondent except the condition for a period of 6 months of stability. He felt his licence suspension should be rescinded.
16On March 2, 2020 the respondent received a letter from Dr. Lui, a psychiatrist at CAMH. He had taken over the care of the appellant following his release from the Homewood Mental Health Centre. In this letter he confirmed the progress the appellant had made and his compliance with treatment but pointed out that he could not confirm a period of 6 months of stability.
17On March 4, 2020, the Registrar sent a notice to the appellant indicating that his licence remained under suspension. The Registrar noted that the suspension could be reconsidered after a 6-month period of mental and emotional stability. The registrar also enclosed a substance abuse questionnaire that would need to be filled in.
18The Registrar drew our attention to the recommendations of the CCMTA. The registrar pointed out the dangers of driving with a psychiatric or an emotional disorder. The registrar drew our attention to rule 14.6.1 of the CCMTA recommendations. It noted that in order to have the driver’s licence returned the appellant needed to show the condition was stable, and that he also had insight into his illness and would stop driving if his condition deteriorated. It also noted there should be no functional disability and the appellant’s physician should be supportive of his return to driving. While no time limit was noted in the CCMTA recommendations the Registrar testified it was the policy of the ministry to recommend a period of 3 to 6 months. The Registrar went on to testify when there had been 2 or more hospitalizations in the last twelve months the registrar required the 6-month time period.
19The appellant testified that in November 2019 he took himself off medications as he did not like the side effects of the oral Abilify (anti-psychotic medication). This resulted in the delusional thinking he had, resulting in his psychotic behavior noted by the Waterloo Regional Police at the Waterloo airport. He realizes that this was mania. He admitted that he was taking marijuana to self- medicate and control the manic feelings. He testified this was bad judgement.
20The appellant testified the first hospitalization was in May 2019 and the circumstances were similar, but his father convinced him to go to hospital and get treatment before he went to the airport. He was treated and accepts his diagnosis of bipolar disorder. He testified that the hospital helped him on both occasions, but he could not stay on the Abilify, due to side effects. On the second hospitalization this medication was changed to an injectable version and it is given every 3 weeks by his CMHA nurse and he stays on this medication along with Lithium.
21The appellant testifies he is better now and is not taking any street drugs. He has support at home and is staying with his father. He takes his medication regularly and he feels he is ready to drive now.
F. CONCLUSION
22Based on the evidence presented, and on a balance of probabilities, I find that the appellant has a psychiatric condition and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. I accept the evidence submitted by the appellant confirming the progress he has made in the treatment of his psychiatric condition, however, agree with the Registrar’s submission that not enough time has passed to be satisfied the danger due to this psychiatric condition may not recur. The past history of stopping medication is concerning to me. I take note of the CCMTA recommendations and the policy of the Ministry and while they are not the law, they are useful guidelines. They recommend a period stability of 6 months.
23Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_________________________
Dr. Peter Savage
Member
Released: April 7, 2020