Ilia Tian v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 11869

A. LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards

Tribunals Ontario

Date: 2021-01-19

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:

Ilia Tian

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Katie Awad, M.D., Member Katherine Livingstone, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Ilia Tian, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

Heard by teleconference: November 25, 2020

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER:

A. Overview

1The appellant appeals the February 13, 2020, decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the Registrar) to suspend his licence pursuant to section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8. (the "HTA").

2The decision to suspend the appellant's licence was made after the appellant presented himself on February 10, 2020, at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto seeking a prescription for Naltrexone. The attending emergency room physician concluded the appellant had a substance abuse disorder, namely alcohol, and recommended he undertake intensive outpatient treatment.

3Pursuant to her obligation under section 203 (1) of the HTA to report any person who has or appears to have a prescribed medical condition that may make it dangerous for a person to drive, the physician reported her findings to the Registrar. The Registrar in turn suspended the appellant's licence.

B. THE ISSUE

4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition, specifically alcohol use disorder, likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. In order to answer that question, we will address the following issues:

a. Does the appellant have a substance use disorder?

b. Is the appellant's medical condition of a substance use disorder, if any, likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

C. CONCLUSION:

5For the reasons that follow we find the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically a substance use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. Accordingly, we confirm the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

D. 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 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 the driver suffers from a medical condition or addiction likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the "Regulation") under the HTA states:

a. An applicant for or a holder of a driver's licence must not....

i. be addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

8Section 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 Standards") when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although it is not bound by them.

9The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground(s) 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.

E. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

a) Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder?

10As set out below, we find the appellant has a substance use disorder.

11The Registrar filed documentary evidence in support of its position, the admissibility of which was not contested by the appellant. The Medical Condition Report was completed by the CAMH physician on February 2, 2020 In the Report the physician noted the appellant had or appeared to have a "diagnosis of an uncontrolled substance use disorder, namely alcohol, and she recommended a form of intensive outpatient treatment.

12The Registrar also filed the notice of suspension dated February 13, 2020 directed to the appellant. In the notice the Registrar noted that in order to be considered for reinstatement of his licence the appellant would require confirmation from a physician that he had abstained from alcohol for a period of a year, unless the physician confirmed the appellant's attendance at an alcohol treatment program and the physician was supportive of the reinstatement of his driving privileges.

13The Registrar also filed a copy of the appellant's driving history which disclosed a 3-day suspension on October 17, 2019, after the appellant registered a warning on a roadside alcohol screening device.

14The Registrar filed a substance abuse assessment completed by the appellant's family physician on October 22, 2020, wherein the physician indicated the appellant had a diagnosis of a "severe substance use disorder", namely alcohol and that the appellant had abstained from alcohol for less than 6 months. The physician indicated they did not have confirmation of any completed alcohol treatment program but did indicate the appellant would benefit from alcohol abuse counselling services. The assessment also reported that blood tests completed by the appellant within the prior 3 months indicated his biochemical markers were all within normal limits.

15The appellant testified he went to CAMH when his own doctor was unavailable, as he was interested in getting a prescription for Naltrexone and his friend told him he would be able to get it at CAMH.

16Naltrexone is a prescription drug used to help persons with addiction issues, be it alcohol or drug, refrain from substance use. It can be taken for up to 12 weeks. It is not a drug to be taken for a couple of days and then discontinued.

17While acknowledging he was drinking more than usual, given family pressures in the time leading up to his visit to CAMH, the appellant told the Tribunal he exaggerated his alcohol dependency so he would get the prescription. He said the physician at CAMH did not give him the prescription, but his family physician did, although he only took it for 2 or 3 days and then stopped.

18In both his examination in chief and his cross examination he was inconsistent in his accounting of his use of alcohol, saying at one point he would drink on the weekend, at another point on special occasions like Thanksgiving and New Years and then saying maybe only twice a year would he drink more. At one point he said his last drink was Thanksgiving 2019 however his visit to CAMH in February 2020 and the October 2020 substance abuse assessment that indicated his present abstinence had been less that 6 months seriously undermine that evidence. The appellant clearly tried to leave the impression that his alcohol consumption was not an issue of concern. Overall, his evidence as to his use of alcohol was confusing, contradictory and unreliable.

19The appellant did not put forward any medical evidence that he does not have alcohol use disorder, other than the blood markers that were within normal limits. The Tribunal does not accept the appellant's evidence with respect to his use of alcohol. We find, based on the February 2020 medical condition report and the more recent substance abuse assessment that the respondent has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has substance use disorder.

b) Is the appellant's medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

20The appellant testified he feels he can drive safely, does not drink and drive and needs his licence to attend to everyday responsibilities such as taking his children to school, activities and necessary appointments. He also wishes to be able to drive to Ottawa to visit with family.

21The Registrar submits the appellant's medical condition is severe enough that he should not be permitted to drive at this time. The Registrar relies on the guidelines contained in the CCMTA with respect to substance abuse or dependence (Chapter 15).

22Chapter 15 of the CCMTA Standards states that individuals who are under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs such as opioids, cocaine, amphetamines are at a higher risk for adverse driving outcomes.

23Guideline 15.6.3 states an individual who was under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs such as opioids, cocaine, amphetamines is eligible for a licence if he or she:

• Meets the criteria for remissions and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.
• Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction's specialist and/or treating physician and successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program
• The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
• Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows the functional abilities for driving are not impaired

24Based on this standard, the appellant would not be eligible for a licence. The evidence before the Tribunal does not establish the appellant has abstained from alcohol for 12 months. It is our opinion, given the known relapsing nature of alcohol use disorder and the fact that there is no evidence of a favourable recommendation for re-licensing from the appellant's treating physician, a further waiting period is warranted.

25Furthermore, although the Tribunal is not bound by CCMTA Standards, in this case it chooses to follow them given the appellant's medical condition of substance use disorder.

26The appellant indicated he is prepared to go to counselling for alcohol abuse, however he believes he should be able to recommence driving before completing any treatment. He was clear in his evidence he does not feel his present habits with respect to the use of alcohol pose any concern. Given the information before the Tribunal from two physicians that he in fact suffers from substance use disorder, the reluctance to the appellant to accept this diagnosis heightens his risk. The Tribunal concludes the appellant presently has a substance use disorder to an extent that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. This conclusion is supported by the fact that the appellant has a relatively recent suspension for having registered a "warn" on a roadside alcohol screening device.

27We appreciate the loss of a driver's licence can have significant consequences for the individual affected. While we understand the appellant's concerns about the practical challenges that result from a licence suspension we must apply the provisions of the HTA and Regulations, bearing in mind the objective of ensuring public road safety.

28After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, we find on a balance of probabilities the appellant suffers from substance use disorder and that this medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

F. ORDER:

29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence is confirmed.