Appeal under section 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 to suspend a licence.
Between:
Roy Carroll
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Constantine Petrou, M.D.
Jennifer Friedland, Member
APPEARANCES:
For Appellant: Self-represented
For Respondent: Kyle Biel, representative
Hearing by Teleconference: September 24, 2021
A. Overview
1The appellant is a 76-year old man whose driver’s licence was suspended on June 22, 2020 by the respondent, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8 (the “Act”). This provision allows the Registrar to suspend a licence in certain circumstances, including where a person suffers from a mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability (“a medical condition”) likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.
2In this case, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence followed the receipt of a medical report dated May 1, 2020 sent by the appellant’s family doctor to the Registrar describing that the appellant had been in a car accident and had suffered a traumatic brain injury. His doctor recommended that the appellant be sent for an “MTO driver functional assessment.” This is a specific driving evaluation administered by the Ministry of Transportation to determine whether a person is able to safely operate a motor vehicle.
3A subsequent report completed by the appellant’s geriatrician on June 8, 2021 confirmed the appellant’s traumatic brain injury and diagnosed the appellant with “mild cognitive impairment.” This doctor also recommended that the appellant take a “road test to assess driving safety.”
4The Registrar agrees with the doctors’ recommendations and takes the position that the appellant’s licence should remain under suspension until such time as he takes and passes a functional assessment (and assuming no other concerns arise in the meantime).
5The appellant made plans to take the functional assessment on June 15, 2021 but discovered that he could not afford the cost, which was $750 at the centre he contacted. To date, he has not taken the assessment. Instead, he appeals to this Tribunal pursuant to s.50(1) of the Act asking the Tribunal to set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend his licence.
6The appellant submits that a functional assessment is unnecessary. He testified that he has been driving for a long time, was in fact a driving instructor previously, and is still a safe driver. He is frustrated that he should have to pay for an assessment when, in his view, the car accident that led to his brain injury was not his fault. He also feels that he is now a burden to his wife who has had to drive him places since his licence was suspended. The appellant seeks an alternative means of proving that he can operate a motor vehicle safely, including by having the Tribunal just take his word for it. Alternatively, he (half-heartedly) suggests that the panel members go for a drive with him. Not surprisingly, the panel was unable to accommodate this latter idea.
B. Result
7For the reasons given below, and despite having sympathy for the appellant’s circumstances, the Tribunal agrees with the Registrar that the appellant’s licence should remain suspended at this time. If he wishes to have his licence reinstated, the appellant should follow the steps outlined by the Registrar. This begins with him successfully completing a functional driving assessment at an approved MTO assessment centre.
C. Law & Analysis
8The purpose of the licence provisions of the HTA is to “protect the public.” Section 31 (a) describes that one of the ways this is done is by ensuring that:
31(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely.
9Section 14(1)(a) of O.Reg 340/94 specifies that:
An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not,
- 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) of the Regulation goes on to state that:
In determining whether an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence of any class meets the qualifications described in subsection (1), the Minister,
a) may take into consideration the relevant medical standards for applicants or holders of that class of driver’s licence set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers; and
b) may 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, including,
(i) any reports of examinations under section 15, and
(ii) any additional medical information. O. Reg. 453/10, s. 1.
11One of the examinations that a driver may have to undergo, pursuant to s. 15 (1) (b) of the Regulation, includes:
… a demonstration of the person’s ability to drive safely …
12We are satisfied, based on the medical records in evidence, that the appellant suffers from a traumatic brain injury and mild cognitive impairment. The appellant does not dispute these diagnoses.
13We are further satisfied that the above medical conditions are likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. While the appellant disagrees with this conclusion we prefer the evidence contained in the appellant’s medical reports over the appellant’s own assertion that he is a safe driver. He might be. However, he will have to prove this through the recommended process – which is to take and pass a functional assessment.
14We note that the appellant’s family doctor has been his treating physician for almost 40 years (since 1982), and his geriatrician has been providing him care since 2018. We see no basis to reach a conclusion contrary to the recommendations of his treating physicians.
15The doctors’ recommendations and the Registrar’s request that the appellant complete a functional assessment before being eligible to have his licence reinstated are also consistent with the provisions of the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers. Section 6.6 of the CCMTA Standards (relating to cognitive impairment) and section 7.2 (relating to traumatic brain injuries) echo the need for a functional assessment where required before a person with either condition may be eligible for a licence.
16While we are not bound by the CCMTA Standards, the evidence before us from the appellant’s doctors satisfies us that a functional assessment is required in order for the appellant to demonstrate that he can operate a motor vehicle safely. A functional assessment is a lengthy evaluation that includes a comprehensive assessment performed by an occupational therapist and an on-road driving evaluation. The test is specifically designed to assess whether a person with a medical condition can safely drive and can only be completed at a functional assessment centre approved by the MTO. In our view, based on the appellant’s medical reports, there is no alternative to a formal functional assessment that would adequately determine whether the appellant can safely operate a motor vehicle given his diagnosed medical conditions.
17While we do sympathize with the appellant’s frustration at having to pay for a driving assessment which he does not feel he needs and which arose from an accident that, in his view, was not his fault, in the interest of road safety we must confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence until he takes and passes this test.
18With respect to the cost of the assessment, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to address this issue. However, Mr. Biel helpfully suggested that the appellant look at the cost of the functional assessment at different locations in the province, as apparently the price fluctuates. He also suggested that the appellant might explore whether his insurance provider could cover its cost. The appellant is encouraged to keep these suggestions in mind if he decides to pursue the functional assessment in order to see whether his licence can be reinstated. In the meantime, the suspension of his driver’s licence will continue.
D. Order
19Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence under s.47(1) of the Act.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________
Dr. Constantine Petrou, M.D.
_______________________
Jennifer Friedland, Member
Released: October 08, 2021