Wayne Eagle v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2021 CanLII 90671

Date: 2021-09-22

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:

Wayne Eagle

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Wayne Eagle, Self-Represented

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference: September 14, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW:

1On April 17, 2021, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), after receiving a report from a physician that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder, a condition 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 of the evidence and for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal sets aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.

B. ISSUES:

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

4To answer that issue, I will address the following questions:

a. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

b. If the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

C. LAW:

5Under the 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”).

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.

7A person whose licence is suspended under these provisions may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the HTA.

8On 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 interfered with by a medical condition.

9Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

D. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder based on the unsolicited medical report of Dr. Gillian Hewson, the appellant’s family doctor. The Registrar confirms the condition was brought to the Ministry of Transportation’s (the “Ministry”) attention by Dr. Hewson’s report.

11The Registrar and the appellant agree that the Registrar’s concerns regarding diabetes and diabetic peripheral neuropathy have been resolved based on medical documents received and reviewed by the medical department of the Ministry.

12The appellant agreed he had alcohol use disorder and maintained he has taken steps to control this condition. The appellant’s position is the condition is now controlled and he is safe to drive. He testified he stopped drinking in January 2021, months before his medical practitioner reported him.

13The Registrar’s medical evidence, consisting of reports submitted by Dr. Hewson, Dr. Patricia Uniac, a medical addiction councillor, and the appellant’s own testimony support the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. The appellant’s testimony confirmed this condition and confirmed the condition was still under treatment.

14I conclude that the Registrar has established on balance of probabilities that the appellant is a person with alcohol use disorder.

b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

15The 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. I conclude that the Registrar has failed to discharge its burden.

16The Registrar drew attention to the CCMTA (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators) Medical Standards for Drivers. The Registrar pointed out the dangers that alcohol use disorder can potentially cause while driving. The Registrar outlined the requirements prescribed in the CCMTA standards that would be needed to consider licence reinstatement. This would include being stable for a period of time after completion of an alcohol treatment program. While the CCMTA standards do not define the precise period of time that a driver must remain abstinent in order to be relicensed, the Registrar testified that members of the Ministry’s medical review team have established 6 months as the period of time. Under questioning, the Registrar testified that every case is reviewed individually, and the 6-month requirement is a guideline and not the law.

17The Registrar made the following submissions with respect to how the appellant’s condition affects the appellant’s ability to drive safely:

1. The appellant’s condition is confirmed by the appellant’s family doctor, the addictions doctor and the appellant himself.

2. The appellant has not completed a period of 6 months of abstinence. The Registrar maintains not enough time has passed to be sure the appellant will not return to drinking and thus become a risk while driving.

3. The appellant’s testimony confirmed the appellant stopped drinking in 2016 for 6-8 weeks and then returned to drinking. This type of recurrence may happen again.

4. It would be prudent to wait for a full 6 months of abstinence before considering the return of the G licence.

18The appellant maintained he is a safe driver, has a safe driving record and argues that there is no reason alcohol use disorder would affect his driving safety. The appellant’s position is that his condition has stabilized and will not recur and that his licence should be returned now. The appellant addressed the Registrar’s concerns

19The appellant testified he had been driving for many years and had no history of accidents and pointed to his spotless driving record documented by the Ministry.

20The appellant addressed the Registrar’s concern about not being abstinent for 6 months. He testified he stopped drinking on his own in January 2021. In April 2021 he had a single drink on two occasions. He consumed these drinks in his own home. He took these drinks to calm himself due to his intense frustration at being reported by his family doctor when he had already had 6-8 weeks of sobriety and was committed to stopping drinking. The appellant testified that the he consumed these two drinks in mid-April 2021 and that was 5 months ago. His position is that he has been essentially abstinent since January 2021 a period of 8 and ½ months.

21The appellant addressed his 2016 period of abstinence. The appellant testified that he stopped drinking at that time in order to lose weight. He managed to lose 20 to 25 pounds of weight and gradually returned to drinking alcohol.

22The appellant provided medical evidence and testified that he has cirrhosis of the liver, a serious medical condition that could be made worse by returning to drinking. The appellant’s position is that the cirrhosis is another strong reason for him to never go back to drinking alcohol.

23The appellant provided evidence that he completed an alcohol treatment program at the House of Friendship in Kitchener, and he is doing follow up with that program, as well as follow up with Dr. Uniac.

24The appellant testified he has a supportive wife and family and a stable home life. He was not taking any medication other than the metformin for diabetes. He was in the process of finding another family doctor and had medical specialists for his diabetes and cirrhosis as well as ongoing follow-up with Dr. Uniac.

25The appellant testified he has never drunk alcohol and driven in the past and he would never drink and drive in the future.

26Section 15.6.3 of the CCMTA standards states that drivers with alcohol use disorder may be eligible to drive with less than 12 months’ abstinence if they have completed an alcohol treatment program. The CCMTA does not define that period of time. The position of the appellant is that he has completed the alcohol program and has organized follow up and has been abstinent for a sufficient period of time to qualify for restoration of his driving privilege. I accept Dr. Uniac’s report as well as the appellant’s testimony that he hasn’t had a drink since April 2021 and has had only 2 drinks since January 2021.

27The evidence does not support the Registrar’s position. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition 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 while he has alcohol use disorder, that condition is stable and under control. I am also significantly persuaded by the fact that despite the appellant having alcohol use disorder since at least 2016, he has a spotless driving record. Moreover, I further find that the appellant meets the CCMTA Standards’ earlier relicensing criteria because he has completed an alcohol rehabilitation program.

E. ORDER:

28For 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.