Licence Appeal Tribunal
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals Ontario
Tribunal d’appel en matière de permis Tribunaux de la sécurité, des appels en matière de permis et des normes Ontario
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 the Act to suspend Driving Privileges
Between:
John Belliveau Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Constantine Petrou, M.D., Member Stephen Scharbach, Member
Appearances: For the Appellant: John Belliveau, Self-represented Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
Overview
1The appellant appeals a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver’s licence on medical grounds.
2According to the Registrar, the available medical information indicates that the appellant suffers from two conditions that warrant suspension - alcohol use disorder and cognitive impairment.
3In the appellant’s view, he has no cognitive impairment and his alcohol use is moderate and does not interfere with his ability to drive safely. He asks that the Registrar’s decision to suspend be set aside and his licence reinstated.
ISSUE
4Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability drive safely?
DECISION
5The Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed. The Registrar received a report from the appellant’s family physician stating that the appellant suffers from a cognitive condition and substance use disorder. The appellant was asked to submit assessments from physicians regarding those conditions. No assessment was submitted concerning a possible cognitive condition. An assessment was submitted regarding substance abuse disorder which confirmed that the appellant suffers from that condition.
THE LAW
6The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (the “Act”) and s.14(1) of Ontario Regulation 340/90 (“Regulation”) to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence if the driver suffers from any physical or mental condition likely to significantly interfere with the driver’s ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.
7Information about a driver’s physical or mental condition is often provided to the Registrar by health care practitioners. They are required by the Act to report to the Registrar the names and clinical condition of any person who, “… in the opinion of such medical practitioner is suffering from a condition that may make it dangerous for such person to operate a motor vehicle.”
8A person whose licence is suspended on medical grounds may appeal the suspension to this Tribunal and, following a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision of the Registrar.
9In determining whether a driver suffers from a condition that may disqualify him/her for a driver’s licence, the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the medical standards set out in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”).
10Those standards have been developed and published in order to establish consistent medical standards for assessing driving eligibility. While they are relevant and may be considered, the CCMTA Standards are not binding on either the Registrar or the Tribunal.
11Sections 6.6.1 and 15.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards are relevant in this case.
12Section 6.6.1 deals with eligibility for licencing of people who suffer from cognitive impairment or dementia. The section states that a person who suffers from cognitive impairment or dementia is eligible for licencing if:
- a medical assessment indicates cognitive functions necessary for driving are not impaired, or,
- where required, functional driving assessment shows the condition does not affect the ability to drive.
13Section 15.6.3 deals with eligibility for licencing of people who suffer from substance use disorder. The section states that such people are eligible for licencing if (among other things):
- they have abstained from alcohol for 12 months,
- Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.
EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
(a) Registrar’s Decision to Suspend
14On March 4, 2020 the Registrar informed the appellant that his driver’s licence was being suspended because the Ministry of Transportation (“Ministry”) had received a report indicating that he had two conditions – alcohol use disorder and cognitive impairment - that affected his ability to drive. That was based on a medical condition report dated March 2, 2020 submitted to the Ministry by Dr. P., the appellant’s (then) family physician.
15The appellant was told by the Registrar that in order to be considered for re-instatement, he would have to arrange for a substance use assessment form and a cognitive assessment form to be completed and submitted to the Registrar by a physician. Those assessments would be reviewed against the CCMTA standards and a determination would be made as to whether his licence could be reinstated.
16The appellant arranged for the substance use assessment form to be completed by a physician and submitted to the Registrar. That assessment was completed by Dr. G, an addictions physician to whom the appellant has been referred. Dr. G. stated in the assessment that the appellant’s diagnosis is “severe substance use disorder” involving alcohol. The form of treatment recommended by Dr. G. is “outpatient intensive” and Dr G. is presently seeing the appellant on a weekly basis.
17The appellant did not arrange for the cognitive assessment form to be completed.
18The substance use assessment form was reviewed by the Registrar and, in a letter dated June 5, 2020, the appellant was informed that his licence would remain suspended. The Registrar stated that in order for re-instatement to be considered, the Registrar required:
- the cognitive assessment completed by the appellant’s physician as requested initially by the Registrar.
- confirmation that the appellant has remained abstinent from alcohol for a one-year period which may be reduced if the appellant successfully completes an alcohol treatment program.
(b) Appellant’s evidence
19The appellant’s position is that he does not currently suffer from alcohol use disorder or any cognitive difficulties that affect his ability to drive safely.
20He testified that he went to see Dr. P. to get the results of a blood test. Dr. P. asked him to complete a short cognitive test without any explanation. The appellant was unaware of the purpose or significance of the text and he completed it quickly and without concentrating. Afterwards, Dr. P. informed him that he had failed the test and that she was going to report his condition to the Ministry. According to the appellant, he voiced his objection, Dr. P in turn became irritated and impatient, and she left the office slamming the door behind her.
21Dr. P. later sent a medical condition report to the Ministry stating that the appellant suffered from “alcohol dependence” and “dementia or Alzheimer’s”. According to the appellant he does not suffer from dementia or any cognitive impairment and Dr. P’s report was based on the results of one short test that wasn’t properly explained to him and which the appellant didn’t take seriously.
22With respect to alcohol, the appellant states that he has not consumed alcohol for about three months. However, at the time Dr. P. made her report, he was drinking in moderation – 3 or 4 beers per day, 4 to 5 days per week - and his alcohol intake was spread out over the afternoon and evening. The appellant testified that his use of alcohol did not interfere with his ability to drive safely - he did not drink enough to get a hangover and he never drank and drove. The appellant’s driving record confirms that he has not been convicted of any drinking and driving offences, or any traffic violations at all, in the last 32 years.
(c) Decision
23Under s. 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside a decision of the Register made under s. 47 of the Act. In this case we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
24Dr. P. apparently believed the appellant was suffering from conditions that may make it dangerous for him to operate a motor vehicle and, as she was required to do under the Act, she reported those conditions to the Registrar.
25The Registrar immediately suspended the appellant’s licence but asked the appellant to submit more detailed medical assessments relating to the two reported conditions. The Registrar stated that once the assessments were completed and submitted, they would be reviewed against the CCMTA standards and a determination would be made as to whether the appellant’s licence could be reinstated.
26With respect to the reported cognitive condition, the appellant has not arranged for a physician to complete and submit the cognitive assessment form. Although the appellant essentially states that he has no cognitive difficulties and that Dr. P’s report was a result of a misunderstanding, in our view the Registrar’s decision to maintain the suspension until a more detailed cognitive assessment has been completed and reviewed is reasonable.
27With respect to the reported condition of alcohol dependence, the appellant did arrange for a substance use assessment form to completed by a physician and submitted to the Registrar. That assessment indicates that the appellant’s diagnosis is “severe substance use disorder” involving alcohol.
28In summary, two physicians provided reports to the Registrar stating that the appellant suffers from an alcohol related substance use disorder. The appellant states that the initial report from Dr. P was unwarranted given his relatively moderate and responsible use of alcohol. However, the second more detailed report is from Dr. G., an addictions specialist who presently sees the appellant on a weekly basis. Dr. G.’s reported diagnosis appears to confirm Dr. P’s earlier report and suggests that the appellant’s condition is more severe than he described.
29In these circumstances it is the Tribunal’s opinion that the Registrar’s decision to maintain the suspension until the appellant completes a one-year period of abstinence which maybe reduced if the appellant attends a treatment program is reasonable and consistent with the CCMTA standards.
ORDER
30Pursuant to s. 50 (2) of the Highway Traffic Act, the decision of the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________ Constantine Petrou, M.D. Member
_______________________ Stephen Scharbach, Member
Released: June 25, 2020