Tribunal File Number: 13011/MED
Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, from a decision of the Minister of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.
Between:
Eric Euteneier
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Panel: Katie Awad, M.D., Member Laura Hodgson, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Eric Euteneier and Mark Euteneier
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent
Heard by teleconference: March 10, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview:
1This is an appeal from the decision of the respondent Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend the appellant’s motor vehicle licence. The decision to suspend was made by the respondent following receipt of a medical report indicating the appellant’s ability to safely drive a vehicle was impacted by a psychiatric condition.
ISSUE
2The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, schizophrenia. The issue to be determined is whether this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.
RESULT
3We find that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Accordingly, we confirm the Registrar’s decision.
LAW
4The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence. One 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;
5Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation the Registrar may 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.
6Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar 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 consider the CCMTA Standards. They are not, however, binding.
7The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending a driver’s licence on a balance of probabilities. 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:
8The Registrar received a Medical Condition Report on September 9, 2020, from the appellant’s psychiatrist indicating that the appellant suffered from a psychiatric illness (schizophrenia) that made it dangerous for him to operate a motor vehicle. On September 16, 2020, the Registrar received a follow up letter from the psychiatrist indicating that the appellant’s chronic psychotic illness (schizoaffective disorder) dated back to 2007. When she first met the appellant on September 9, 2020, he presented with “psychotic symptoms including delusions, thought disorder, and possible hallucinations”. The psychiatrist noted that family members advised her that the appellant had experienced these symptoms for a year and a half and had driven safely during that time.
9The appellant’s licence was suspended on September 23, 2020. The Registrar requested the completion of a Mental Health Assessment before reinstatement could be considered. The appellant appealed the suspension on November 30, 2020.
10The appellant’s new psychiatrist completed the Mental Health Assessment on February 4, 2021. The psychiatrist indicated the following by checking the applicable boxes:
The appellant’s primary mental illness is “Schizophrenia or other Psychotic Disorder”;
The onset of the most recent illness episode was more than 12 months ago;
The appellant’s condition is stable with ongoing moderate symptoms;
Current symptoms include delusions;
The appellant suffers mild cognitive impairment (non-dementia, secondary to chronic schizophrenia);
The appellant has difficulty with judgement;
The appellant has no substance use issues;
The appellant is prescribed medication, is under monthly medical supervision and adheres to recommended treatment; and
The appellant requires an independent functional assessment.
11On the form, the psychiatrist also noted: “remains incapable to consent to treatment due to lack of insight into having a mental illness. Good compliance with meds, which we continue to adjust. He has ongoing delusions including related to being an elite athlete and a Formula One driver.”
12At the hearing, when asked about delusions, the appellant responded that delusion was not a word. He detailed issues arising for him from, among other things, owning a company, being a head doctor, being assaulted by medical professionals and driving a police car and ambulance. When discussing his treatment, the appellant at first indicated it was problematic as it caused side effects. The appellant did, however, clearly know his medical appointment dates and is noted to fully adhere to his treatment protocol.
13The appellant’s father referred to his son’s “fantastical thinking” but emphasized that it did not impact his ability to drive safely. He noted the appellant’s clean driving record, adherence to treatment, stable condition and close medical supervision. The appellant also provided a letter from his employer indicating that, in his view, the appellant is a safe, observant driver
14The respondent submits that the appellant should not be permitted to drive a motor vehicle until he establishes a three month period of mental stability, confirmation that delusional episodes have been successfully treated and improvement in judgement. The respondent relies, in part, on guidelines in the CCMTA Standards with respect to psychiatric disorder (chapter 14). Guideline 14.6.1 states that individuals with psychiatric disorder are eligible for a licence if:
the condition is stable
the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if condition becomes acute
the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
a treating physician supports a return to driving, for drivers who have stopped driving due to a psychiatric disorder, and
Conditions for maintaining a licence are met.
15Based on this standard, the appellant would not be eligible for a licence. Medical information and the evidence presented at the hearing indicate that the appellant does not have appropriate insight into his medical condition or its impact on his driving.
16The Tribunal finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Although we acknowledge that the CCMTA standards are not binding, in this case we find them persuasive. We agree that a period of stability is necessary before the appellant’s licence can be reinstated.
17The Tribunal acknowledges the impact that the loss of his licence has on the appellant and his ability to live independently. The Tribunal must, however, apply the provisions of the HTA and ensure public road safety.
ORDER:
18For the reasons set out above, the Registrar’s decision dated September 24, 2020 is confirmed.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Katie Awad, Member
Laura Hodgson, Member
Released: March 26, 2021