Sofia Mourtzis v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 117547

Date: 2021-11-16

An 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 licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Sofia Mourtzis

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION & ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member

Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Sofia Mourtzis

For the Respondent:

Steven Grootenboer

Heard by teleconference:

October 12, 2021

Overview

1By letter dated August 12, 2021, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) suspended Sofia Mourtzis’s (the appellant) driver’s licence for medical reasons. It is the respondent’s position that the appellant must complete a 3-month period of mental and emotional stability in order for her licence to be reinstated.

2The Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence was made pursuant to s.47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”).

3The difference between the Registrar’s position that the three-month suspension should be upheld and the appellant’s position, is the appellant submits that she has shown that she has her condition under control and should now get her licence back. While there is evidence supportive of the appellant’s position, we are left with lingering concerns over the appellant’s acceptance and treatment of her condition.

Issue

4The issue to be determined is whether the appellant’s medical conditions, if any, are likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

Result

5For the reasons set out below, we confirm the Registrar’s decision.

Law

6The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any of the grounds listed in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section. Paragraph (g) states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).”

7One 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 likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) under the HTA states:

(1) An applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence must not…

(a) 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;

8Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister of Transportation (“Minister”) to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding requirements.

9Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister may also require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely. The Tribunal may consider whether a driver has complied with such a request.

10The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

Evidence and Analysis

11The Registrar’s position may be broken down into two components. Firstly, the Registrar asserts that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition and substance use disorder that may make her a danger to other road users. Secondly, the Registrar submits that in order to address those safety concerns, the appellant must demonstrate that her mental health condition has been stable for three months and she is abstaining from the drugs.

12The appellant submits that the best medical evidence available shows that her condition has stabilized, and urine screens confirm her abstinence. She points to a supportive report from her family doctor. She submits that nothing more will be served by extending the suspension.

13An examination of the medical evidence will show areas where we still remain concerned.

14The Registrar contacted the appellant on August 12, 2021 after they received a Medical Condition Report from a healthcare practitioner advising of a mental health condition and substance use disorder. Based on the report, the respondent decided to suspend the applicant’s driving privilege under Section 47(1) of the HTA. At that time, the respondent outlined the necessary information needed from the appellant in order to consider reinstating her driver’s licence including:

a. Confirmation of a 3-month period of mental and emotional stability

b. Confirmation that her symptoms of suicide ideation have successfully been treated or resolved

c. Confirmation of improvement in her condition

d. Completion of a Substance Use Assessment to be completed by her healthcare practitioner.

15The appellant came to the attention of the Ministry of Transportation after suffering a seizure and loss of consciousness while engaging in recreational marijuana use. She was ultimately cleared by a neurologist; however, it was at that time her mental health deficits came to light.

16The appellant states that she is doing much better at this time. She called a witness to the hearing, her aunt, who provided testimony that she is doing better. The witness also stated that the loss of the appellant’s licence has impacted her ability to visit her niece.

17The appellant’s doctor provided favourable reports to support that the appellant’s improving condition. In addition, the appellant’s doctor also confirmed that the appellant has been able to “cut down and abstain” from using substances since early August. This is confirmed by a recent urine test.

18The Mental Health Disorder form indicates a diagnosis of bipolar disorder and a previous diagnosis of borderline personality disorder by CAMH. The report notes that the appellant’s condition is stable with ongoing mild symptoms. While her condition is improving, she has remained stable for less than 3 months. As a result, the respondent maintains the condition of a minimum 3-month mental and emotional stability.

19The panel is concerned with the fact that the appellant was prescribed medication but is choosing not to take it. This weighs against her in terms of compliance and overall insight into her condition and the need for treatment. It may also indicate that the appellant believes she is able to manage her condition on her own and dismisses the direction of her medical practitioner.

20The appellant’s doctor has made a referral to a psychiatrist for diagnosis, treatment, and confirmation of borderline personality disorder. The panel places great weight on the importance of this referral as it indicates a gap in the information needed to determine the appellant’s readiness of emotional stability. It also further confirms the respondent’s position that there are unresolved medical issues that need to be addressed before her licence can be reinstated.

21The panel is convinced that the appellant’s condition is improving. This is corroborated in the medical report which indicates that her improvement coincides with a new job she has secured with Ruby Leaf Pictures ULC, a television production company operating in Toronto. The appellant currently works as a COVID Compliance Monitor in her department. She states that she is required to start work early and often finishes late. The panel received and considered a letter of support from her manager dated August 17. 2021.

22The appellant states that she has not had any vehicular accidents and has never driven while under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Her driving record appears to support this. While we did take that into consideration, the medical opinion of the appellant’s unresolved emotional issues outweighs the results of her driver’s abstract. In addition, her recent success in obtaining gainful employment is not impacted or jeopardized by her licence being under suspension. It also appears that she has been able to attend work without her licence. Ultimately, the panel regarded public safety to be most important and do not believe the appellant has met the threshold of demonstrating her readiness to safely drive a motor vehicle.

23The panel did consider mitigating factors in this case. There is no indication of cognitive, attention or memory impairment. Also, the medical reports do not cite any issues with exercising proper judgment. The appellant has not been admitted to hospital in the past 12 months. Notwithstanding this, the medical opinion is that the appellant seeks treatment for her mental health condition. She was prescribed medication in the past for her bipolar disorder, however, she stopped, claiming she could not tolerate the side effects.

24We acknowledge that the appellant’s condition is improving. The aggravating factor for which we place large weight is the fact that the appellant has not been seen by a psychiatrist for confirmatory diagnosis and possible treatment. Although she has not been hospitalized in the past year and appears to have tried her best to be abstinent of drugs, we believe not enough time has elapsed to establish stability for recommendation for her licence to be reinstated. The panel believes that she must follow through with her doctor’s recommendations to be further assessed for her readiness to drive.

25Based on a careful consideration of all the evidence before us, it is our opinion on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Therefore, the Registrar’s decision is confirmed.

WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

26For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver licence is confirmed.