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 pursuant to section 47(1) of that Act – to suspend a licence.
Between:
Kristoffer Reid
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
PANEL: Dr. Peter Savage, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Kristoffer Reid, Appellant Jami Sanftleben, legal representative
For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent for the Registrar
Heard by Teleconference April 6, 2021
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
OVERVIEW
1This is an appeal from a decision of the respondent, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”), to suspend the appellant’s class G driver's licence. The suspension took effect January 28, 2021 and the cause of the suspension was the appellant’s alleged alcohol use disorder.
ISSUE
2The legal issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically, alcohol use disorder, and whether this condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.
RESULT
3For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant did suffer from a medical condition however this condition is not likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely. Accordingly, the decision by the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence is set aside.
LAW:
4Under the Highway Traffic Act (“HTA”) the Registrar is responsible for ensuring that drivers are medically fit to drive vehicles on the highway. In this case, the Registrar acted pursuant to s. 47(1) of the HTA and s. 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the HTA (the “Regulation”).
5Section 14(1)(a) of the Regulation states that every driver must not suffer from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely. Under 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 when determining whether the driver has such a condition.
6A person whose licence is suspended under s. 47 may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the HTA.
7On appeal, the Registrar has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s ability to drive safely is likely to be significantly affected by a medical condition.
8Following 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:
a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?
9The Registrar alleges that the appellant has alcohol abuse disorder based on the unsolicited medical report from Dr. Nguyen dated January 28, 2021. The Registrar points out two road side warning range alcohol readings, one in June 2018 and one in December 2020.
10The appellant denies that he has alcohol abuse disorder. He asserts that he had stress-related problems which led to a period of binge drinking several years ago and he points to the second document from Dr. Nguyen, dated March 22, 2021 which states he does not have alcohol abuse disorder. The appellant testified that in this document Dr. Nguyen writes the appellant is attending SMART (an alcohol understanding program), his blood work is normalizing, and he is highly motivated to recover.
11The medical evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the appellant may have suffered from alcohol abuse disorder at the time of the first report. The diagnosis was made by a new family doctor based on an interview conducted by a medical student in Dr. Nguyen’s Office. While Dr Nguyen’s initial diagnosis was alcohol abuse disorder, Dr. Nguyen did not maintain that diagnosis when he personally assessed the appellant on March 22, 2021.
12The appellant noted that the interview with the medical student was prolonged (over 90 minutes) and focused more on past events when he was going through a marital break down. The appellant testified he went to the doctor to get help for a number of problems including weight gain, fatigue and stress and was surprised when the interview focused on past marital problems and alcohol. The appellant admitted that three to five years ago at the time of his marital breakup he was partying and drinking too much. The respondent took the position that an interview with a student, under the supervision of a doctor was a valid part of a medical exam and that the student and Dr. Nguyen spoke and the resulting decision to notify the MTO was valid.
13The appellant testified in the past he had drunk to excess on occasion and previously he had a poor understanding of alcohol metabolism. He noted the Back On Track and the SMART programs which he had attended had given him the understanding needed. He noted he had not had a drink of alcohol since January 28, 2021. He felt much better, had lost weight, his blood sugar and other blood tests were normal, and he felt that alcohol was not going to be part of his life going forward.
14The appellant had two warning readings in the past but has had no alcohol related convictions.
15The Registrar commended the appellant on the progress but argued that not enough time had passed to be certain the condition was under control.
b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?
16The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We find that the Registrar has not met that burden.
17The Registrar drew our attention to the CCMTA recommendations and specifically to section 15.6.3. The CCMTA points out the adverse effect substances can have on a person’s ability to drive safely. Section 15.6.3 states that all drivers are eligible for a licence if they meet criteria for remission and/or have abstained from the substance for 12 months. The Registrar asserts that not enough time has passed to meet these criteria. The CCMTA also suggests a shorter period of abstinence if the driver has attended a recognized alcohol treatment program.
18The only medical evidence available is the unsolicited medical report of January 28, 2021 and the substance abuse form of March 22, 2021. The second of the two reports seem to show a resolution in the appellant’s condition.
19The appellant’s position is that while Dr. Nguyen made the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder in January 2021, he made no such diagnosis on March 22, 2021. The appellant had met the criteria for remission. Further he stated treatment courses had been undertaken, blood work was normalizing, and the appellant was extremely well motivated.
20While the CCMTA guides are persuasive, they are not binding. As a general rule the Tribunal will only depart from them in exceptional circumstances. In my view, this is such a case. This is because Dr. Nguyen does not make the diagnosis of alcohol abuse disorder in the questionnaire of March 22, 2021 and further to the doctor notes, the appellant has attended alcohol programs, has normalizing blood work and has good insight into his past difficulty with alcohol.
21I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition of alcohol use disorder diagnosed on January 28, 2021 is not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely. A review of the evidence and the appellant’s submissions shows that his doctor no longer believes the appellant has alcohol use disorder and has insight with respect to his past condition and its possible impact on his ability to drive safely.
ORDER:
22For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_______________________
Dr. Peter Savage, Member
RELEASED: April 13, 2021