Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis

Date: 2021-05-07

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 driver’s licence under subsection 47(1) of the Act

Between:

Jari Valila

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member Joanne E. Foot, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Jari Valila, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

Held by Teleconference: April 7, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview

1The appellant appeals the suspension of his class G driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).

2In March 2018, the appellant suffered a seizure that resulted in his admission to hospital. Dr. James Jeong, an internal medicine specialist at the hospital, filed a Medical Condition Report under s. 203 of the Act with the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) indicating that the appellant may have a medical condition that makes it dangerous for him to drive. As a result, by letter dated March 22, 2018, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Act.

3The question for our determination is whether the appellant suffers from a physical condition to an extent that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

4For the reasons set out below, we find that the appellant suffers from a physical condition, namely seizure, to an extent that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

5For these reasons, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

B. ISSUES

6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a physical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

7To determine this issue, we address the following questions:

a. Does the appellant have a physical condition?

b. Is the appellant’s physical condition, if any, likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

C. LAW

8The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence. In this case, s. 47(1)(g) is the relevant ground for suspension. It states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).”

9One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act is that the driver suffers from a medical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the “Regulation”) under the Act 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.

10According to s. 14(2)(a) of the Regulation, in applying the requirements of s. 14(1), the Minister may take into consideration the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”). Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding requirements.

11The Registrar has the burden to establish the grounds for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the Act, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

D. ANALYSIS

a. Does the appellant suffer from a physical condition?

12On the Medical Condition Report dated March 19, 2018, Dr. Jeong wrote “witnessed seizure presumed secondary to alcohol – withdrawal.” As well, Dr. Jeong ticked the box on the form indicating “Seizure(s)-Alcohol related.”

13Along with the suspension letter dated March 22, 2018, the Registrar provided the appellant with a Substance Use Assessment form, requesting that he have it completed by his family physician or other health professional, and submit it to the Registrar. As at the date of the hearing, the Registrar had not received a completed Substance Use Assessment form.

14Section 14(1)(b) of the Regulation permits the Registrar to request medical information from a licence holder to ensure that the holder can drive a motor vehicle safely. Section 15(1.1) of the Regulation stipulates that submitting to medical examinations is a condition of a driver’s licence.

15In his notice of appeal, the appellant asserted that he does not drink daily and that he had “gone months without a drop.” He also wrote that on the date of his hospitalization he “had zero alcohol in my blood.” The appellant testified that he has no history of addiction and that he drinks no more than three drinks per week.

16The appellant testified that he had voluntarily ingested a small amount of ethylene glycol (antifreeze) and that this was the cause of his hospitalization in 2018. He said that he was embarrassed about having done this and did not tell the doctor at the hospital about it. He also acknowledged that, prior to attending the hospital, he had fallen off the sofa, that his mother found him, and that he awoke when the paramedics were in attendance at his home. He denied that this was a seizure but noted that he had suffered rug burns during the incident. In other testimony the appellant testified that he had “did fall down” and this was a “possible seizure”.

17The appellant makes reference to having a blood test scheduled for March 16, 2021 in his notice of appeal, indicating that his physician will not complete the Substance Use Assessment form in the absence of this information. In testimony he said his family physician told him that he was unlikely to get his licence back. He also said that this blood work revealed that his liver enzymes levels were fine.

18On cross-examination, the appellant acknowledged that he had ingested alcohol prior to his visit to the hospital in 2018. He also acknowledged that he had ingested alcohol prior to the case conference held in this matter and that he had commenced drinking early in the morning that day.

19There is inconsistent evidence on the point of whether the appellant’s drinking amounts to a physical condition. Based on his consumption of alcohol before the case conference, it appears to us that he may lack insight into this condition and that he may drink more heavily than he would have us believe. However, we do not find it necessary to make a finding on this point.

20The Medical Condition Report clearly states that the appellant suffered a seizure in 2018 and that Dr. Jeong was a witness to this event. This is cogent evidence, which we accept.

21Based on the information in the Medical Condition Report, we find that, on a balance of probabilities, the appellant suffered a seizure in March 2018. As such, we conclude that the appellant suffers from a physical condition.

b. Is the appellant’s physical condition, if any, likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?

22Having found that the appellant suffered a seizure in March 2018, we now must consider whether this physical condition is likely to significantly affect his ability to drive safely.

23The Registrar asserted that the condition of seizure remains a concern, stemming wholly from the fact that he has not received the medical information requested from the appellant to assess the cause of the seizure and the likelihood of its recurrence. A seizure can result in sudden impairment and loss of consciousness. If a seizure were to occur while the appellant was driving, a serious risk to the safety of other users of the road would result. On this basis, the Registrar has established that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

24After considering the evidence and submissions of the parties, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a physical condition that is likely to interfere significantly with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

E. ORDER

25For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the Appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.