Licence Appeal Tribunal
Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Division Ontario
Date: 2020-09-03
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 driver’s licence under subsection 47(1) of the Act
Between:
Nabil Akleh Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicators: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member; Marisa Victor, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Self-represented For the Respondent: Sonia De Santis, Agent
Heard by teleconference: August 13, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview
1The appellant is a 45-year-old man. On January 24, 2020, an emergency room doctor reported that he has a substance use disorder. He also has had two recent administrative driver’s licence suspensions for allegedly driving while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The first suspension occurred in January 2020 at the same time that his medical condition was reported to the Ministry. The second suspension occurred on August 8, 2020, five days prior to the hearing in this matter.
2As a result of the emergency room doctor’s report, the respondent took the position that the appellant has a substance use disorder and suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons. The respondent requires the appellant to remain abstinent for one year together with urinary toxicology prior to licence reinstatement.
3The appellant appeals the medical suspension.
4The question we need to determine is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, in this case substance use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
5For the reasons that follow, we find that the respondent has established that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. Accordingly, we confirm the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
B. ISSUE
6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from substance use disorder such that it is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.
C. LAW
7The respondent has the burden of establishing the grounds for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities.
8The respondent has the power under s. 47(1)(g) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (HTA) to suspend a driver’s licence for a sufficient reason. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the Regulation) states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not be addicted to the use of alcohol to an extent likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely.
9Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister of Transportation to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (CCMTA Standard) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met.
10The respondent relied on Chapter 15, s. 15.6.3 of the CCMTA Standard. That section is for those with a substance use disorder, including illicit drugs such as opioids. The CCMTA Standard states a driver can have their licence reinstated after a period of abstinence of 12 months or sooner if a rehabilitation program is completed and there is support from a treating physician or addiction specialist.
11We may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding on us.
D. EVIDENCE
Respondent’s Evidence
12The respondent takes that position that the appellant should not have his medical suspension lifted until he has completed one year of abstinence. The respondent takes the position that the appellant has not completed any period of abstinence while on methadone treatment. The respondent takes the position that early re-licensing based on the completion of a substance abuse treatment program is not available.
13The respondent relies on the following evidence:
a. January 24, 2020 report by an emergency room doctor
b. May 11, 2020 Substance Use Forms and submitted by the appellant’s family doctor
c. Information and letters from ADAPT treatment program
d. Urine analysis reports
e. CCMTA Guidelines
f. Appellant’s driver’s record
14On January 24, 2020, an emergency room doctor advised the Ministry that the appellant suffers from a substance abuse disorder, namely morphine derivatives (opioids).
15On May 11, 2020, the appellant’s family doctor submitted the Substance Use Form requested by the Ministry. The doctor indicated that the appellant had recently been treated for opioid abuse and was now on medical methadone. The doctor noted that the appellant was following instructions and urine screens were negative.
16ADAPT provided a certificate of achievement on March 13, 2020. ADAPT also submitted two letters of support from Dr. Holub, noting that the appellant had continued to attend virtual appointments and was gradually tapering his methadone dose. In the letter dated April 28, 2020, Dr. Holub noted that they “did not have any concerns regarding his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle”. The July 6, 2020 letter stated that the appellant continued to demonstrate stability and compliance.
17The respondent showed that the appellant had submitted numerous urine analysis tests that all remained negative for opioids.
18Finally, the respondent relied on the appellant’s extended driver’s record report. This showed two recent administrative suspensions for driving while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The most recent administrative suspension was on August 8, 2020 while the appellant’s licence was suspended for medical reasons. The extended driver’s record search also indicated an impaired driving offence from 2005, an offence for driving with an improper class of licence in 2017 and 2018, and operating a motor vehicle without insurance in 2017 and 2018, among others.
19The respondent states that the appellant has not met the CCMTA standard for licensing. In particular, he has not completed a year of abstinence. The respondent argues that because the appellant is on methadone, he has not yet completed a period of abstinence and therefore does not qualify for early reinstatement of licence on completion of a treatment program. The respondent also submits that the appellant’s medical condition together with his driver’s licence record indicates that his substance use disorder will significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
Appellant’s Evidence
20The appellant does not dispute the opioid abuse diagnosis, nor the documents relied on by the respondent. However, he states that since he has gone through a treatment program and has adhered to it, he should have his licence reinstated.
21The appellant explained that he has diabetes. As a result, last year he developed significant pain in his feet. He was prescribed narcotics to deal with the pain. This caused his addiction to opioids. The appellant stated that his foot condition related to diabetes is now being treated and that issue has resolved.
22The appellant explained that in March 2020 he completed a six week program at ADAPT, a community based outpatient assessment and treatment service. He testified that, in addition, he has continued to engage in counselling.
23The appellant stated that the initial letter sent to him by the Ministry indicated that he could obtain early reinstatement of his licence on the completion of a treatment program. The appellant acknowledges that the most recent letter sent by the Ministry on July 30, 2020 requested a year of abstinence. The appellant argues that his licence should now be reinstated as he has completed all the requirements necessary including that his urine analysis are negative for opioids and he has completed the methadone treatment program as of July 22, 2020.
24The appellant testified that he needs his driver’s licence for work. He has maintained the same job at a grocery store for many years. As a result of his driver’s licence suspension, another employee is required to drive him in the company vehicle to various food depots to pick up produce.
25The appellant disputed the respondent’s reliance on his driver’s record. The appellant took the position that his driver’s record was irrelevant to the question before the Tribunal. Further, the appellant argued that both administrative suspension for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol were made in error. The appellant states that in both cases the appellant was sitting in the passenger seat of the vehicle and therefore neither suspension was valid. In the case just a few days before the hearing, the appellant states he was sitting in the passenger seat of his vehicle in the driveway of his home when the suspension was applied.
E. Analysis
26There is no dispute that appellant has a substance use disorder and that he attended at treatment program and was placed on medical methadone. The only question that remains is whether the appellant’s substance use disorder will significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. We find that it does.
27The appellant unfortunately suffered from a medical condition related to his diabetes that led to his opioid addiction. He has made some good choices in order to address his disorder. He successfully completed a treatment program and recently completed the medical methadone program.
28Unfortunately, the appellant’s driver’s record is significant for driving while impaired and other serious charges. The most recent administrative suspension occurred just days before the hearing. The appellant states that the suspension occurred even though he was in the passenger seat of his vehicle in his driveway. This explanation lacks conviction. One wonders why a person with a suspended licence would sit in their vehicle in their driveway at all. Even if that were true, it does not explain why the police believed the appellant was also under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
29Although not binding on us, the CCMTA Standard provides guidance as to when a person suffering from a substance use disorder should resume driving. The CCMTA Standard provides evidence regarding the risks of drugs and driving. The CCMTA Standard suggests that a reduced period of abstinence is appropriate when the appellant has completed a substance abuse program and has a recommendation to return to driving from a treating physician or addictions specialist. In this case, we find the CCMTA Standard is persuasive and carries significant weight.
30We accept the respondent’s position that the appellant had not begun to abstain from opioids until he had completed his methadone program. We accept that the appellant completed the program as of July 22, 2020. This, however, means that the appellant has only abstained for a period of less than a month. Together with the questions raised by the appellant’s driver’s record, this suggests that early reinstatement of the appellant’s licence at this time is not appropriate.
31Based on the evidence above, we find that the appellant has not yet met the requirements of the CCMTA Standard. In making this determination, we note we would have come to the same finding even if we discounted the driver’s record information.
32The respondent has met its burden to prove on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has a substance use disorder such that it is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
F. ORDER:
33For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the Appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member
Marisa Victor, Member
Released: September 03, 2020