Jamie Pynn v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 106435

Date: 2022-11-04

Tribunal File Number: 14314/MED

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 licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Jamie Pynn Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Laura Hodgson, Member

Appearances: For the Appellant: Jami Sanftleben, Paralegal For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by teleconference: November 1, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

Overview:

1This is an appeal from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, to suspend the appellant’s class D driver’s licence. The appellant appealed the suspension on October 4, 2022.

2The Tribunal finds that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder, and it is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely. The suspension is confirmed.

ISSUE

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

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. A driver’s licence can be suspended if, among other things, the driver suffers a condition or from an addiction that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the HTA states:

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; or

(b) be addicted to the use of alcohol or a drug to an extent likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

5Section 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. The CCMTA Standards are not binding on the Registrar. Similarly, the Tribunal may consider the CCMTA Standards but is not bound by them.

6The Registrar has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending a driver’s licence on a balance of probabilities. The Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

EvidenCe and ANALYSIS:

7At the hearing, the respondent indicated that the Registrar received an unsolicited Medical Condition Report dated September 19, 2022. It was completed by a nurse practitioner and indicated that the appellant had relapsed to opioid use, had a history of using opioids and driving and was now seeking treatment. In a letter dated September 20, 2022, the Registrar notified the appellant that his license was suspended. The Registrar requested the appellant’s treating practitioner complete a Substance Use Assessment form before reinstatement could be considered.

8The Substance Use Assessment form was completed by a different nurse practitioner on October 17, 2022. That form indicated that the appellant was seen on October 3, 2022 and was diagnosed with severe opioid use disorder. The appellant had started suboxone treatment and, at that time, had been abstinent for seven days. On October 18, 2022, the Registrar notified the appellant that, the Assessment had been reviewed and his license would remain suspended. Prior to reinstatement the Registrar required confirmation that appellant had remained abstinent from drugs for one year, or for six months if he had completed treatment and had the support of his practitioner.

9The respondent indicates that the suspension is supported by the medical evidence, the HTA and the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers.

10The appellant testified that, following a shoulder injury seven years ago, he developed an addiction to Percocet. Since this time, he has attended numerous in-house treatment and detox facilities as well as Narcotics and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. The appellant acknowledged having his license suspended for one year following a conviction for driving under the influence (opioids). His license was reinstated in September of 2021 after he completed the “Back on Track” program.

11The appellant testified that he has tried to rebuild his life and recently started his own landscaping business. While working, in July of this year, he reinjured his shoulder. The appellant sought treatment at a hospital and at a walk-in clinic. On both occasions he was prescribed Percocet. He then relapsed. The appellant indicated that he did not advise the treating physicians of his addiction issues. The appellant candidly acknowledged also taking hydromorphone prior to seeking help in September.

12Following his relapse, the appellant contacted the Cambridge Rapid Access Addiction Medicine Clinic (RAAM). He testified that he was shocked when the first practitioner he spoke with reported him to the Ministry of Transportation. A letter from RAAM dated October 24, 2022, indicates that the appellant has now been engaged with that clinic since September 30, 2022 and has commenced suboxone treatment. The letter notes that the appellant previously attended the clinic from March to November of 2021 and is well connected with peer supports. It states that the appellant knows that six months of suboxone treatment is recommended.

13The appellant also provided a number of personal reference letters which note his intelligence and his motivation to seek treatment when necessary. The appellant testified that he is committed to his recovery, will reduce his manual labour so to avoid injury and understands he needs to properly disclose his medical history when seeking treatment.

14Based on the medical information provided, the Tribunal finds that the appellant suffers from substance (opioid) use disorder. To his credit, the appellant has sought treatment for this condition numerous times. He relapsed in July of this year and has now been abstinent for one month. The Tribunal notes that this condition has impacted the appellant’s driving as he was previously convicted of driving while under the influence. His license was suspended, and he had only resumed driving for one year prior to the current suspension.

15After considering all the documentation and testimony, the Tribunal finds that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. The CCMTA notes that the use of opioids can adversely affect driving performance (e.g., blurred vision, slowed reaction time, disorientation). With respect to substance use the CCMTA recommends a period of abstinence of one year (or 6 months if an approved treatment program is completed and with the support of the treatment provider). In all the circumstances, we agree that a period of extended abstinence is necessary before the appellant’s licence can be reinstated.

ORDER

16Pursuant to the powers of this Tribunal under s. 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.