Henri Perreault v. Minister of Transportation, 2020 CanLII 51240

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

Date: 2020-07-06

Tribunal File Number: 12691/MED

Appeal under subsection 50 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O., 1990, H.8 as amended, from a decision of the Minister of Transportation to downgrade a licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act

Between:

Henri Perreault Appellant

And

Minister of Transportation Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member Harriet Lewis, Member, Co-panelist

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Henri Perreault, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent

Heard by teleconference: June 3, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1On March 23, 2020, the appellant Henri Perreault (“the appellant”) appealed the downgrade of his class ACM with Z endorsement driver’s licence which allows him to drive heavy vehicles.

2The appellant has had a clean driving record as a professional truck driver for many years. In September 2017 he had surgery on his right wrist for carpal tunnel syndrome and in January 2018 he had surgery for spinal stenosis.

3Following his spinal surgery, on February 7, 2018 the appellant was advised that his driver’s licence was being suspended for medical reasons.

4In June 2018, the appellant was notified by the Deputy Registrar of Motor Vehicles that a satisfactory driving assessment was required to determine whether he could safely operate a vehicle. On October 3, 2019, the appellant was fined for driving while his licence was suspended. It was unclear from the evidence whether he believed he had a valid G licence at that time or not, but he testified that he had never actually received one.

5On November 28, 2018 he attended for a functional driving assessment including both a clinical and on-road assessment and provided a report from the assessing occupational therapist recommending that “his G licence be reinstated”, although he testified that he had never held a G licence.

6There was evidence provided by both parties that there had been errors or omissions in communications between the parties around the appellant’s licence status and with respect to the reporting of that status on the Ministry of Transportation website. The appellant believes that he was improperly or unfairly fined for driving without a G licence because none had been issued to him. He had only held an ACM licence. However, whether the appellant’s licence status was incorrectly stated or reflected in Ministry records is not the issue before this Tribunal. It is agreed that no formal notice of downgrade was sent to the appellant until April of 2020 and it is that downgrade that is the matter under appeal.

ISSUES

7The issues to be addressed are:

• Does the Registrar have reason to believe that having regard to the medical status of the appellant at this time, he will not operate a commercial motor vehicle safely?

• Is it reasonable given the appellant’s medical history to require him to demonstrate by a satisfactory road test, that he has the ability to operate safely a motor vehicle that requires an ACM licence with a Z endorsement?

LAW AND ANALYSIS

8Section 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act provides that the Minister may require a person who holds a driver’s licence to “submit to examinations authorized by regulations” and “to impose the conditions authorized by the regulations, remove any conditions or endorsements or change the class or classes of driver’s licence held by the person, in accordance with the results of the examination and other prescribed requirements”.

9Section 14(1) of Ontario Regulation 340/94 under the Act (“the Regulation”) provides 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 safely. Section 14(2) permits the Minister to “require the applicant or holder to provide evidence satisfactory to the Minister that he or she is able to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely” (emphasis added).

10On June 25, 2018 and again on July 21, 2018, the Deputy Registrar wrote to advise the appellant that “to determine whether you can safely operate a vehicle, we require a satisfactory driving evaluation from a rehabilitation centre”. On November 11, 2018, the appellant attended an assessment centre at Health Sciences North and completed a Functional Driving Assessment, including an on-road assessment. The occupational therapist concluded that “there was no evidence of a medical condition that impairs his ability to drive” but recommended that the appellant be issued a G licence.

11The Driver Information Record issued by the Ministry of Transportation shows the medical suspension of a GM licence on February 17, 2018 but we were not provided with a record of the appellant’s ACM licence. Correspondence sent to the appellant by the Registrar dated May 25, 2020, confirms that his ACM licence was not officially downgraded and noted on the register until sometime in April 2020.

12However, in January 2019 the Registrar wrote to the appellant to direct him to a Drive Test Centre, specifying that he should take a three-part driver’s examination consisting of a written, a vision and a road test “in a class AC vehicle”. The letter advised the appellant that “if you fail to complete the test by March 8, 2019, or if your test is unsuccessful, your driver’s licence will be downgraded to a Class G”. Notwithstanding, the appellant did not take a road test at that time.

13The appellant testified that he recently reattended at a testing centre and satisfactorily completed the medical and written test sections. He says that he was told by the clerk at the drive test centre that there was no need for him to do the road test. While we do not challenge the appellant’s testimony on that point, it does not mean that he is excused from taking a road test in an AC class vehicle.

14The May 25, 2020 correspondence between the Registrar and the appellant that gave rise to this appeal is clear that “the reason for your driver’s licence downgrade that occurred last month was as a result of you failing to complete 3-part testing for an AC class licence. As mentioned in our letter to you on January 7, 2019, this testing was required to keep the commercial class licence, as the functional assessment completed in late 2018 only satisfied the requirements for a G licence.” The appellant’s most recent functional driving assessment (2018) specifies on-going mobility issues in his shoulders and wrists which impeded his ability to make “shoulder checks”. We assume that this was a factor in recommending only a G licence at that time and we are of the opinion that such a condition, if it persists, is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a heavy motor vehicle covered by a class ACM licence safely.

DECISION AND ORDER:

15Based on the evidence, we find that:

i. At the time of the original medical suspension and at the time of the January 7, 2019 notice of intention to downgrade, the Registrar had reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant could not operate a motor vehicle of the AC class safely.

ii. It is reasonable for the Registrar to continue to require that the appellant satisfactorily complete all three parts of a functional driving assessment to demonstrate that he can now operate a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

16The appeal is denied.