Mario Alvarenga v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2020 CanLII 34382

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2020-05-11

An 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 licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Mario Alvarenga

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION & ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Katie Awad, M.D., Member Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Gord Wilson, Paralegal

For the Respondent:

Kyle Biel, Agent

Heard by teleconference:

April 8, 2020

Overview

1Mario Alvarenga (the “appellant”) appeals the Registrar of Motor Vehicles’ (the “respondent”) decision to suspend his driver’s licence under s.47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) for medical reasons.

2The appellant was first contacted by the respondent on September 21, 2018 who received a Medical Condition Report from the appellant’s healthcare practitioner. The report provides details of the injuries he sustained after falling from a flatbed truck which included an intercranial hemorrhage (ICH) with subdural subarachnoid and frontal contusions. The respondent is concerned about the appellant’s ability to safely operate a motor vehicle due to the fact that he experienced a seizure after the accident.

3The appellant’s driver’s licence was suspended on September 24, 2018. The parties corresponded in writing on several occasions. On October 4, 2019, the appellant was approved for a class G licence, however, the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) deemed that the appellant does not meet the National Medical Standards for a commercial licence due to his seizures which requires anticonvulsant medication and reports of abnormal test results from his medical practitioner. As a result, his commercial licence was downgraded until such time as he remains seizure free for a period of 5 years.

4The appellant, who is now 51 years old, claims that the fall was the result of a hormonal imbalance. He was taken to the hospital and assessed. The respondent requested additional information and clarification from the appellant’s medical practitioner. The appellant complied with some of those requests. It is noted that the appellant’s neurologist has confirmed on multiple occasions that he suffers from a neurological condition.

5It is the appellant’s position that he has no history of seizures and a time period of 5 years to be seizure-free is excessive. It also interferes with his ability to work in gainful employment as a truck driver. He is asking that the Tribunal consider a time period of less than 5 years.

Issue

6The issue to be determined is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure and brain injury, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a commercial motor vehicle safely.

Result

7For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to interfere with his ability to drive. Accordingly, we confirm the respondent’s decision to downgrade his driver’s licence for medical purposes and order that it remain suspended until he completes a period of 5 years free of seizures.

Law

8The 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).”

9One 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 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…

(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;

10Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister of Transportation (“Minister”) 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.

11Under 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.

12The 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.

Evidence and Analysis

13The appellant had his last seizure in September 2018. He has been on antiepileptic medication since that time and has been compliant with taking the prescribed dose.

14The appellant testified that he has no cognitive deficits and received high scores in all of the assessments administered. He believes that there is no evidence to suggest that he will have any difficulty operating a commercial vehicle safely.

15The respondent testified that the appellant’s condition meets the MTO’s criteria for downgrading a commercial licence. In addition to this, section 52 of the Act grants them the ability to pursue this downgrade. The respondent testified that the medical reports revealed abnormal imaging results for the appellant. They also note that none of the medical reports disclosed by the appellant addresses the higher class of licence. There is no reference or support to the higher class of licence.

16In response to the appellant’s submission that he will have no difficulty operating a commercial motor vehicle, the respondent stated that a seizure behind the wheel could be catastrophic. It is noted that the appellant is on a high dose of the antiseizure medication.

17There is sufficient medical evidence to support that there are significant concerns about seizures even if the appellant suffered only one. There is also a risk of the antiseizure medication causing a seizure given the high dosage. It is also concerning that the seizure is accompanied by an ICH.

18We note that having an ICH puts individuals at risk of having a seizure disorder. Although the appellant may not have epilepsy, having a finding of ICH on imaging (CT and MRI) puts him at an increased risk of having seizures in the future.

19We acknowledge that the appellant has been compliant with his antiepileptic medications/treatments, however, the neurology report only states that there are no concerns and does not provide an opinion on the issue of the appellant’s licence being downgraded.

20Furthermore, the fact that the appellant is required to see his neurologist every three months after a year-and-a-half of having the seizure suggests that the appellant’s medical condition is concerning to the point that the healthcare practitioner believes close monitoring is warranted.

21We agree with the respondent that none of the medical reports provided during the hearing is sufficient evidence to support the return of the higher class of licence to the appellant.

22Based on a careful consideration of all the evidence before us, it is our opinion on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

23For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s commercial driver licence is confirmed.