Original Date: 2020-06-25

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:

Roy Boisvert

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Roy Boisvert, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: June 16, 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 use disorder of unknown severity. The appellant was notified of the suspension by a letter from the Registrar dated December 19, 2019.

2I conducted a preliminary matters review of this appeal and noted that no medical evidence had been submitted by the appellant. The appellant was given an opportunity to ask for an adjournment in order to gather the medical information needed. The appellant chose to go ahead with the appeal without further delay.

B. ISSUE

3The legal issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically, alcohol use disorder, which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

C. CONCLUSION

4For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant 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

5The 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).”

6One 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.

7Subsection 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.”

8Section 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.

9The 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.

10Pursuant 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, SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS

Registrar’s evidence

11The Registrar reviewed the sections of the HTA that the Ministry relied upon to suspend the appellant’s G licence, including section 14 (2) (ii) which empowers the Ministry power to request information about a condition that may affect the appellant’s ability to drive.

12The Registrar received an unsolicited medical report dated December 12, 2019 from Dr. Melissa Fransky, the appellant’s family doctor. This report stated the appellant had or appeared to have a substance use disorder. The report went on to say the appellant is noncompliant with treatment recommendations. The report recommended outpatient intensive treatment.

13The Registrar sent a letter to the appellant on December 16, 2019 informing him of the report and suspending his class G driver licence. The letter indicated his licence was suspended based on an alcohol use disorder. The letter included a substance use assessment questionnaire to be filled out by his health care provider

14The Registrar pointed out that no further medical evidence had been received despite the fact that the date for the hearing had been delayed in order for the appellant to have more time to obtain further medical reports and no reports had been received.

15The Registrar pointed out that the CCMTA was a group of road safety experts from across Canada. They made recommendations regarding the effect of medical conditions on the ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. The agent noted that the recommendations of the CCMTA were recommendations and not the law.

16The Registrar pointed out the dangers substance abuse could present while driving. The CCMTA document outlines the dangers of substance abuse but, without appropriate medical evidence the Registrar could not point to a specific section. The complete substance abuse questionnaire was needed to document whether this was a mild, moderate or severe substance use issue.

17The Registrar drew attention to the appellant’s driving record. He noted that there had been two impaired charges and one dangerous driving convictions in the past. The appellant initially disputed this fact but after review, the appellant accepted the Registrar’s evidence. The Registrar felt this past driving record made it very important to have updated medical evidence before the Tribunal could give consideration to lifting the licence suspension.

18The Registrar pointed out that the only medical evidence available was the report of the family doctor. The Registrar argued they acted appropriately in suspending the licence and until further documentation was received the licence should remain under suspension. Without further medical evidence the Registrar does not know if the substance use disorder is mild, moderate or severe and cannot consider removing the suspension until this information was received.

Appellant’s evidence

19The appellant agreed that he had provided no documented medical evidence.

20The appellant testified that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason he could not get documentation. On questioning by the Registrar, he admitted he had not tried to get any documentation from his addictions counsellor or his family doctor. The appellant testified it was just too difficult and too expensive to get this information. A taxi ride to town was one hundred dollars and he did not have any money except ODSP. The Registrar pointed out the fact that the appellant was given 5 months after the case conference to get the medical information and to have the questionnaire filled out. The appellant agreed that he did have time but pointed out the difficulties he was faced with which prevented him from getting any documents.

21The appellant testified he drank only on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. He drank only beer and had 5-7 regular bottles on Friday evenings, 2-3 bottles on Saturday afternoon and 1-2 bottles on Sunday. He would have a taxi bring a 12 pack of beer to his residence once a week.

22The appellant testified he tried attending AA and went to 2 or three meetings in different communities but found their reference to God made him uncomfortable and they were not appropriate for him. He felt walking in the woods and hiking was the best therapy he could get.

23The appellant testified he was on a list for in-patient treatment but because of COVID this treatment had not happened. He was working with a counsellor and she was still trying to get him into an in-patient facility. He testified that in-patient treatment had helped him in the past. He testified that 7 weeks ago the counsellor had said things were opening up and he might get admitted soon. Therefore, he totally stopped drinking alcohol seven weeks ago as he had been told he would not get admitted if blood tests indicated he had been drinking.

24The appellant testified he had not seen his family doctor since she reported him to the MTO. He testified she did not know him and could not help him.

25The appellant pointed out he lived on his own and had no alcohol in his home except on weekends. He had a 60-year-old woman boarder in the home who did not drink alcohol and has disabilities. He needed his licence to help her with medical appointments and grocery shopping through the week as well as picking up their mail. He testified that he had not had a drink now for 7 weeks.

26The appellant testified he had no other medical issues and he did not take any prescribed medication. He testified he took a small amount marijuana on regular basis and had done that since his teenage years. He noted marijuana was now legal and it helped him relax.

27The appellant testifies he is a good driver and would never again drink and drive. He pointed out he had his own breathalyzer and tested himself any time he drove after drinking. He was terrified of ever going to jail and that was the main deterrent preventing him from drinking and driving.

28The appellant asked the Registrar if he could get his suspension lifted if he had an alcohol lock installed on his car. The Registrar stated that an alcohol lock would not address the issue raised in the unsolicited medical report.

F. ANALYSIS

29Based on the medical evidence presented, and on a balance of probabilities, I find that the appellant has an alcohol use disorder of unknown severity and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle.

30I accept the evidence submitted by the appellant’s family doctor setting out a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder and noting the appellant is non-compliant with treatment. I agree with the Registrar’s submission that the family doctor’s report is the only medical evidence available and that the Registrars decision to suspend the licence until further medical evidence was received was reasonable in the circumstances. The appellant admitted to failing to provide the further medical information requested by the Registrar. The appellant had sufficient time to get the requested documents and declined to ask for an adjournment in order to obtain them.

31The fact that the appellant has a record of 2 charges of driving while impaired supports my conclusion the appellant likely has a condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle.

32The appellant spoke with clarity and emotion but had no documentation to verify any of his testimony respecting his current medical condition and its impact upon his ability to drive safely. The appellant’s opinion that he is fine and safe to drive at this time is only self-certified and I did not put as much weight on the appellant’s opinion as I did on the family doctor’s medical opinion.

ORDER:

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