Date: 2022-11-08

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 license under subsection 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Karin Meilinger

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant: Karin Meilinger, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: November 3, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview

1By letter dated September 11, 2020, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (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 “HTA”), for medical reasons. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate her licence.

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

B. Issue

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

1. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely a cognitive impairment?

2. If the appellant does suffer from a cognitive impairment, is this likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

C. The Law

5The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any grounds listed in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section. Paragraph (g) states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e), or (f).”

6One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s.47(1)(g) of the HTA is that the driver suffers from a medical condition or addiction likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely.

7Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the HTA requires that a holder of a driver’s licence must not 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.”

8Section 203(1) of the HTA requires medical professionals to report prescribed medical conditions to the Registrar, while s. 203(2) gives medical professionals the discretion to report medical conditions that they believe might make it dangerous for a person to drive.

9Section 14(2)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA”) Medical Standards for Drivers when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The CCMTA Standards are not binding on the Registrar or on this Tribunal.

10The Registrar has the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that one or more grounds for suspending a driver’s licence has been made out.

11Pursuant to section 50(2) of the HTA, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

D. Evidence and Analysis

a. Does the appellant suffer from a cognitive disorder?

12In support of its allegation that the appellant suffers from a cognitive impairment, the Registrar relies on the Medical Condition Report (“MCR form”) dated August 24, 2020 and two Cognitive Disorder forms (“CD form”), all from family physician, Dr. Jennifer Young.

13In the MCR form of May 2, 2022, Dr. Young advised that the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment. In the CD forms, Dr. Young’s diagnosis is mild and moderate cognitive deficit.

14The appellant testified that she felt well and didn’t feel she had a cognitive deficit although she admits that at the time of the initial condition report she was confused and should not have been driving. The appellant maintains that since her release from hospital in early September 2020 she has not suffered from cognitive impairment although she presents no medical evidence to support her position.

15I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment.

b. Is the appellant’s medical condition of cognitive impairment likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle safely?

16The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. I find that the Registrar has satisfied this burden.

17The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, chapter 6 which describes cognitive impairment and dementia and the concerns with driving with respect to that condition. The Registrar relies on chapter 6.6.1 which recommends, if required, functional driving assessments to show the condition does not affect ability to drive.

18The Registrar submits that, as per the CCMTA chapter 6, even mild-moderate cognitive deficiencies can lead to a catastrophic result in some drivers.

19In a letter dated March 3, 2021, the Registrar advised the appellant that the Registrar requires a satisfactory functional driving assessment from an approved Functional Assessment Centre. This was based on the CCMTA and the family doctor’s recommendations.

20The appellant was assessed by Occupational Therapist, Maria Wright at Skill Builders Physio and Rehab (“Skill Builders”). On January 27, 2021, for the written portion and on May 12, 2021 for the on road portion Skill Builders issued a Functional Driving Assessment (the “driving assessment”) form, which confirmed a diagnosis of cognitive impairment and reported deficits in the appellant’s functional driving skills and recommended that the appellant not drive.

21The driving assessment noted among other things:

i. Unawareness of speed limit changes

ii. Confusion at stop signs and stop lights

iii. No blind spot checks when needed

iv. Inadequate observational skills.

v. General difficulty with information processing

vi. Difficulty with visual perception

vii. Difficulty with decision making

viii. Critical driving errors. Stopping on green light and going through stop signs

All of these observations support the Registrar’s position that the appellant is unsafe to drive.

22Dr. Young submitted another letter in August 2021 noting there had been some improvement in the appellant’s cognitive function and the Registrar allowed another functional driving assessment.

23On November 18, 2021 the appellant underwent another functional driving assessment. The Occupational Therapist Cindy Adamson at CBI Health Barrie confirmed a diagnosis of cognitive impairment and recommended that the appellant do not drive.

24The driving assessment noted the following deficiencies among other things.

• Slow driving speeds

• Heavy braking

• Stopping at green lights

• Nearly hitting pedestrians

• Difficulty at processing information

• Difficulty with dividing attention.

All of these observations again supporting the Registrar’s position that the appellant is unsafe to drive

25The appellant testified she had no infractions. This is verified in the Registrar’s submission. The appellant testified that she is a safe driver and points to her clean driving record introduced by the Registrar. The appellant also pointed out that the family doctor’s most recent findings indicated improvement in her cognitive function. Further the appellant testified that while the results of the driving assessments were not favourable it was her opinion that the tests were unfair. The appellant noted that the driving test was too long, too stressful, involved 400 series highway driving and was in a city she was not familiar with. While I understand her concerns about the test I am more concerned with the functional driving deficits observed in the test.

26The appellant testified it was her opinion that the functional driving assessment centres routinely failed people in order to make more money through retesting multiple times. The appellant felt that testing should be done in government controlled test centres and there should be no cost to the appellants.

27I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition of cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle. I agree with the Registrar that the CCMTA Standard, chapter 6.6.1 is reasonable and relevant to the appellant, and I apply it here. Its concerns with regard to safety are well supported by the two functional driving assessments. I find that reinstating the appellant’s Class G licence would present a significant risk to the safety of the appellant, her potential passengers, and others using the roadways.

E. Order

28For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class G Licence.