Licence Appeal Tribunal
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:
Patricia Headley Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION & ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Dr. Peter Savage, M.D., Member
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Patricia Headley
For the Respondent:
Sanjay Kapur
Heard by teleconference:
November 2, 2021
Overview
1By letter dated February 11, 2019, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) suspended Patricia Headley’s (the “appellant”) driver’s licence for medical reasons. This was after receipt of an unsolicited Medical Condition Report with an examination date of February 7, 2019. A second unsolicited Medical Condition Report was received by the respondent with an examination date of February 13, 2019.
2At that time, the respondent identified substance use disorder and a psychiatric condition as reasons for suspending the appellant’s licence, until such time as a medical practitioner can complete the necessary documentation to provide an expert opinion on her fitness to drive. This information would then be reviewed against the national medical standards.
3The appellant provided information from their medical practitioner to which the respondent replied in their letter dated August 21, 2021. In that letter, it is stated that the appellant’s licence remains suspended due to a reported mental health condition. At the hearing the respondent acknowledged that they are no longer relying on substance abuse ground. This panel now focusses on the mental health issue and period of stability.
4It 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. The 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”).
5The Registrar submits that the three-month suspension should be upheld. The appellant submits that she has shown that her condition is under control and she should now get her licence back. She also believes she was misdiagnosed and that her underlying issue and symptoms are related to depression.
6The panel views the appellant’s present circumstances as different from when her licence was suspended back in 2019. The panel finds that the evidence demonstrates that the appellant has made significant progress in her condition which supports her licence being reinstated. In other words, we are not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant has a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
Issue
7The issue to be determined is whether the appellant’s medical condition, if any, is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
Result
8For the reasons set out below, we set aside the Registrar’s decision.
Law
9The 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).”
10One 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;
11Section 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.
12Under 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.
13The 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
14The respondent asserts that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition disorder that may make her a danger to other road users. The respondent submits that in order to address those safety concerns, the appellant must demonstrate that her mental and emotional health condition has been stable for three months.
15The respondent citied previous medical reports which indicate marijuana use, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. It is also their submission the appellant’s driving record also demonstrates a concerning pattern of continuing to drive while her licence was suspended.
16The respondent confirmed that the substance use issue is no longer a concern. Despite the fact that the appellant has not been hospitalized in the past 12 months, the respondent seeks 3 months of mental and emotional stability as the minimum period they are seeking in accordance with the CCMTA standards. The respondent does not view this requirement as particularly onerous.
17The appellant testified in an honest, forthright, and thoughtful manner. She acknowledges that she suffers from depression and her doctor verifies that opinion. She is not in agreement that her medical condition is associated to recreational drug use. In addition, she feels the conflicting diagnoses she has received in the past do not conclusively support that her licence ought to be suspended.
18The appellant presented at a hospital with bizarre behaviour in February 2019. She recalls that she was sitting in a vehicle with a friend when she began to feel the left side of her face drooping. She recalls feeling weak, numb and confused. She also remembers sweating profusely. She subsequently exited the vehicle in a somewhat disorientated state. Police attended the scene after bystanders saw her erratic behaviour and called 911. There was also a collision as the vehicle she was sitting in was being reversed by her friend and struck another vehicle. The ensuing police investigation discovered that her friend was smoking crystal methamphetamine in the car. The appellant was exposed to the second-hand vapours. There was no strong evidence to confirm that the appellant was also using crystal methamphetamine. However, it is reasonable to believe she may have been under the influence of another substance.
19The panel notes that the attending emergency room doctor and the psychiatrist gave differing diagnosis. The attending emergency room doctor assessed her as suffering from a marijuana use disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder. The appellant was then taken into custody at the Hamilton-Wentworth detention centre and assessed by a psychiatrist who concluded her condition to be substance-induced psychosis and alcohol withdrawal delirium. The panel takes into consideration the fact that they both assessed the appellant for only a short time. Based on the reports, it is more than likely that the emergency room doctor formulated his opinion on the appellant’s mental health condition through hearsay from EMS attendants.
20The appellant’s bizarre behaviour is most likely due to the methamphetamine she was exposed to. There was nothing in the medical reports to suggest a problem with methamphetamine use. As well, an episode such as this has not happened before or subsequent to the singular episode back in 2019.
21There is no question that the appellant’s unusual behaviour warranted assessment at the hospital. However, the erratic behaviour does not necessarily align with the diagnosis made at the hospital. Her subsequent follow up appointments with her doctor indicate that her ongoing symptoms are more consistent with a condition of depression. This is confirmed in a Mental Health Assessment Report dated August 25, 2021. This report does not indicate any concern with her ability to drive a motor vehicle. Based on the information reviewed and testimony received, the panel agrees that the most likely diagnosis is depression which the appellant has suffered from for some time.
22The panel was left to contemplate whether the condition of depression is likely to interfere with her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. We took into account various mitigating factors and placed weight on the fact that she has performed well and accomplished a lot since her licence was first suspended.
23The appellant has completed many courses and participated in job training. She has also demonstrated good insight and understands her condition, limitations and abilities. At the hearing, the appellant revealed that her living condition was somewhat precarious in the past. She was living in a shelter when she met her current nurse practitioner. Since that time, the appellant has solidified her living arrangements and reconnected with her family.
24The appellant states that she also followed through with regular drug testing because she wanted to prove that she was not using methamphetamine. The panel views this as an authentic display of the appellant truly wanting to clear her name of this allegation and was willing to subject herself to tests to prove it.
25The appellant has also been proactive in taking charge of her personal health. She has obtained medical care from a doctor who is assisting her with prescribed cannabis and a nurse practitioner in the community who continues to support her. In February 2020, the same nurse practitioner described her condition as stable. The appellant continues to take medical marijuana and appears to use it only as prescribed, which is before going to sleep. Her medical lab report results are clear of everything but cannabis, which is to be expected.
26The appellant states that she intends to continue moving forward in a positive manner by engaging with work, family, and continued management of her personal health. She is a mother of 7 children and was able to secure employment after this incident and has also obtained her licence as a forklift driver. She is currently working with an agency.
27In response to the respondent’s testimony of her poor driving record, the appellant explained that some of her interactions with police during traffic stops were due to having an incorrect address on her licence. As previously noted, the appellant’s past living arrangements were unstable and at times she had no fixed address. She states that she was not aware of the suspension until she renewed her driver’s licence. She also states that she has not driven since learning about her suspension. According to the driver’s abstract presented as evidence, she has no further charges of driving while suspended since 2019.
28The respondent recommends a 3-month period of mental and emotional stability. Based on the evidence, the panel finds that the appellant has demonstrated a sufficient period of stability and that it already exceeds 3 months.
29The panel is convinced that the appellant’s mental health condition of depression is improving and controlled by the cannabis she is currently prescribed. She has been reported to be adherent to the treatment regimen. Her doctor is also of the opinion that there are no side effects such as sedation, impairment of concentration, judgement or vision that would impair her ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
30Based on a careful consideration of all the evidence before us, we are not satisfied 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 set aside.
WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
31For 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 set aside.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Peter Savage, M.D., Member
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: November 29, 2021