Date: 2022-11-23

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:

Mary Caspers

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant: Mary Caspers, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: November 15, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview

1By letter dated October 18, 2021, 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 his 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 October 14. 2021.

13In the MCR form of October 14, 2021, Dr. Virk advised that the appellant suffers from mild dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Dr. Virk was the appellant’s family doctor at the time of the report.

14The appellant testified that she felt well and didn’t feel she had any cognitive deficiency. The appellant presented no medical evidence to support this position.

15In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I am prepared to accept the findings found in the MCR and I 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.

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 October 18, the Registrar advised the appellant that her licence was suspended, and the Registrar requires completion of a cognitive impairment questionnaire. The Registrar points out, that at the case conference the appellant was again advised to have this questionnaire filled out. Neither the questionnaire nor any other medical information has been received by the Registrar.

20The appellant testifies she has no recollection of receiving the questionnaire and doesn’t believe it was sent to her. The Registrar documents the times and dates that the questionnaire was sent as well as pointing to the case conference report which confirms a discussion about the need to have the questionnaire filled out. This lack of recall tends to support the registrar’s position that the appellant has mild to moderate cognitive impairment.

21The appellant testified that she had two visits with Dr. Virk and on the first visit she was asked a number of “silly” questions by the doctor and her assistant and two days later she was called back to the office and was told “that’s it you are finished, and you are not to drive anymore”. The appellant further testifies Dr. Virk was not nice to her and then spoke to the appellant’s sister alone and further Dr. Virk had her assistant follow the appellant home to make sure that the appellant was safe and that her car was put away.

22The appellant testified that she has had no accidents and her record shows 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

23I 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 are well supported by the family doctor’s report confirming mild to moderate cognitive impairment as well as her follow up actions in sending an assistant home with the appellant for safety reasons and the lack of any contrary medical information. 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

24For 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.