Daniel Berube v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 48157

Date: 2021-05-26

Appeal under section 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:

Daniel Berube

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Dr. Peter Savage, Member Colin Osterberg, Member

Appearances

For the Appellant: Daniel Berube, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: May 5, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW

1On September 17, 2019, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), after receiving a report from a treating physician that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his licence.

2Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.

B. ISSUE

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

4To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

a. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

b. If the appellant does suffer from alcohol use disorder, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

C. LAW

5Under the Act, the Registrar is responsible for ensuring that drivers are medically fit to drive vehicles on highways. In this case, the Registrar acted pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Act and s. 14(1)(b) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Act (the “Regulation”).

6Under 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.

7Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding on us.

8A person whose licence is suspended under these provisions may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the Act.

9On 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 alcohol use disorder.

10Following 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. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

a. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

11The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder based on the Medical Condition Report dated September 11, 2019 submitted by the appellant’s family doctor, Dr. Renee Gauthier.

12The appellant denies that he suffers from alcohol use disorder. He asserts that he has a social drinking habit and has never operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

13On September 11, 2019, Dr. Gauthier provided an unsolicited Medical Condition Report to the Registrar stating that the appellant suffers from alcohol dependence. Dr. Gauthier reported that the appellant had admitted to driving while drunk, was known to misuse alcohol, and intended to enter detox treatment.

14On September 17, 2019, the Registrar wrote to the appellant telling him that his licence was suspended. The Registrar also informed the appellant that in order to be reinstated, the appellant was to obtain an opinion letter from his treating physician, specialist, or nurse practitioner confirming that the appellant remained abstinent from alcohol for: 1) one year, or 2) less than one year if the appellant was confirmed to have successfully completed an alcohol treatment program. The treating medical professional also had to support reinstatement of the appellant’s driving privilege and complete a substance use assessment form.

15The evidence presented at the hearing was that the appellant had not abstained from alcohol. He had not completed an alcohol treatment program or provided the respondent with any medical opinion that is supportive of reinstatement of his licence. Moreover, he had not submitted a completed substance use assessment form.

16The appellant denies that he is addicted to the use of alcohol. He says that in 2019 his routine was to drink six bottles of beer every evening when he got home from work and that he believed this amount was unhealthy. He has since reduced his drinking to four to six bottles of beer each evening and eight to ten bottles of beer per day on weekends. He believes this to be a healthy amount and does not intend to stop drinking altogether. The appellant stated that he does not drink to the point of becoming intoxicated. In our view, this does not represent a significant change in the appellant’s drinking patterns.

17Section 15.2 of the CCMTA Standards states that heavy drinking in men is defined as consuming five drinks or more per day.

18We find that the evidence before the Tribunal shows that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder. Dr. Gauthier reported that diagnosis on September 11, 2019, and the appellant’s drinking habits have not changed significantly since then. The appellant has not participated in an alcohol treatment program as he said he would in 2019. He has not decreased his level of alcohol consumption to a degree that the Tribunal considers material. According to the CCMTA Standards, he drinks heavily several times each week. He appears to have little insight into his addiction. Lastly, he has not submitted any evidence to suggest that Dr. Gauthier’s assessment was incorrect or that his condition has changed.

19The Tribunal finds that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.

b. Is the appellant’s alcohol use disorder likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

20The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

21The CCMTA Standards states that alcohol impairs a driver’s judgement, reflex, control and behaviour. It further states that alcohol’s negative effects on necessary functions for driving may include, but are not limited to:

• reduced reaction times;

• blurred or double vision;

• altered depth perception;

• reduced judgement and insight;

• blunted alertness; and

• reduced motor co-ordination.

22We find that the appellant lacks insight with respect to his addiction to alcohol, and its effect on him. Despite admitting that he drinks four to six bottles of beer every weeknight and eight to ten bottles of beer per day on the weekends, the appellant says that he never drinks to intoxication. He insisted that since he has never had an alcohol-related driving infraction, he should not have lost his licence. He believes that he is in control of the situation and that his current level of drinking is healthy, and he has no intention of abstaining from alcohol or reducing his consumption from its current levels. Dr. Gauthier considered the appellant’s alcohol dependence to be serious enough to report to the Registrar that the appellant was suffering from a medical condition that may make it dangerous for him to operate a motor vehicle. It is the opinion of Dr. Savage, the physician member of the Tribunal, that the amount of alcohol the appellant admits to consuming is sufficient to lead to intoxication and is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

23We find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant admitted driving while drunk to Dr. Gauthier. Initially at the hearing, the appellant did not deny telling Dr. Gauthier that he had driven while drunk, but instead said that he did not remember saying that. He also suggested that since he had not put that information in writing, the Tribunal should not rely on it. There is no evidence the appellant corrected Dr. Gauthier with respect to the statement.

24Although the appellant says that he never drives after drinking, the evidence is that he has done so in the past, and that he lacks insight into when his drinking might impact his ability to drive safely. While we do acknowledge that the absence of any alcohol-related infractions on the appellant’s driving record is strong evidence in favour of the appellant’s position, we do not find it to be determinative, and ultimately were persuaded by the evidence discussed above. The Tribunal finds that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

E. ORDER

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