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:
Jacqueline Bell
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicator: Dr. Peter Savage, Member
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Jacqueline Bell, Self-Represented
For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent for the Registrar
Heard by Teleconference: February 23, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. OVERVIEW:
1On July 24, 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 a mental health condition, a condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate her licence.
2Having considered all of the evidence and for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal affirms 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, a mental health condition, which is likely to significantly Interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle safely.
4To answer that issue, I will address the following questions:
a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?
b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with her 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 significantly affected 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE
10From the beginning of the hearing the appellant indicated that she felt the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of the Attorney General had conspired to work against her, and that the process was biased. The appellant also expressed the opinion that the Registrar and I were overpaid and lazy autocrats who were not qualified to assess her situation and who had not thoroughly investigated her case.
11While the appellant is certainly free to hold those opinions, in my view they warrant a point of clarification here. As I emphasized during the hearing, although the Registrar of Motor Vehicles and the Licence Appeal Tribunal can both be considered “government organizations” it is important to note that they are independent from each other.
12The right to a fair and impartial hearing is an essential cornerstone in administrative proceedings such as these. I would emphasize for the appellant’s benefit that the Tribunal approaches each hearing with an open mind and makes its decisions based on the evidence and information presented to it. Importantly, the Tribunal owes no deference to the Registrar or its representatives and is free to make whatever decision it finds is supported by the evidence.
E. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?
13The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition based on the unsolicited medical report of Dr. Kaylee Hagerman, an emergency room physician, dated August 6, 2020.
14The appellant denies she has a mental health condition and maintains she was taken to the hospital by police for no reason. The appellant testified that Dr. Hagerman did not see or examine her.
15The unsolicited medical report by Dr. Hagerman indicated the appellant suffered from a mental health or and emotional condition that was unstable
16The Niagara Region Hospital admission and discharge notes completed by medical doctors state the appellant was taken to hospital August 6, 2020 by police because of reports of her bizarre behaviour in the community, including breaking into a vacant building. These notes state a discharge diagnosis of psychotic disorder (unspecified) with the premorbid condition of schizoaffective disorder. The discharge note was written by Dr. El Seidi. The date of discharge was August 12, 2020, six days after the admission.
17The appellant’s position was that she had been taken to the hospital for no reason and did not have a mental health condition. She was upset and aggressive and emotional for good reason as she was being treated unfairly and held against her will.
18The appellant testified that while in hospital she took no medication and followed no medical instructions. She claims the doctors and nurses were lazy and all they did was read their novels and play games on their computers. They discharged her after several days without medication or instructions for follow up. They did not tell her not to drive.
19The appellant underwent a virtual psychiatric assessment November 12, 2021 by Dr. Jagtaran Singh Dhaliwal, a psychiatrist in Brampton. The appellant was seeking support for reinstatement of her licence. The letter back to Dr. Asecombe, the appellant’s family doctor, states that the interview was not satisfactory, and another appointment was needed at a time when the appellant could be more cooperative. The appellant stated she would not go back to that doctor because of his incompetence.
20The partially completed mental health questionnaire requested by the Registrar at the time of the licence suspension was part of the Registrar’s submission. Neither party could explain how this document arrived in the submission. It was undated and unsigned, and I explained to both parties I would be putting no weight on this document.
21The appellant was unwilling to answer questions about medication or past medical history by the Registrar or the Tribunal as she felt they were not relevant to the issue of her ability to drive. She stated she felt that the Tribunal had already made up its mind and this entire hearing was a waste of time and money
22The appellant was repetitive, and often suspicious of the possible reasons questions were being asked. She repeatedly accused the police, doctors and Ministry of Transportation as being out to get her. Most questions asked by the Registrar, or the Tribunal were not answered for these reasons.
23The only medical evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition even though a specific diagnosis was not made. This non-specific diagnosis was made by Dr. El Seidi in his discharge summary and supported by Dr. Hagerman in her unsolicited medical report.
24As a licensed physician in the province of Ontario, I also note that the appellant’s testimony revealed some degree of paranoid thinking and repetitiveness that I am aware as a doctor is often associated with mental health conditions.
25On the basis of balance of probabilities, I find that the Registrar has established the appellant has an undefined mental health condition.
b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?
26The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find that the Registrar has met that burden.
27The Registrar drew attention to the CCMTA (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators) standards and recommendations. The Registrar pointed out the dangers that a mental health condition could cause while driving. The Registrar outlined the requirements that would be needed to consider licence reinstatement. This would include the condition being stable and the patient having sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition worsened. It would also include having a determination the appellant has the functional abilities needed to drive and the support of a physician recommending a return to driving.
28The Registrar made the following submissions with respect to how the appellant’s condition affects the appellant’s ability to drive safely:
The appellant’s condition is confirmed by a treating psychiatrist and an emergency room physician;
The appellant has failed to provide a completed mental health assessment questionnaire and can’t explain how a partially filled in unsigned or dated form was returned to the Registrar;
The appellant denies she has a mental health condition and has no plans to change her approach to or her views on the need for medication;
The appellant has a limited understanding of her condition and would not have the insight to stop driving if the condition worsened;
There is currently no medical follow up and support regarding the appellant’s mental health condition. The family doctor has been dismissed and there is no other evidence of mental health treatment or other social supports;
There is no evidence from a medical professional recommending a return to driving;
The appellant’s unwillingness to answer questions about functional ability, medication, and other matters made it difficult to assess her ability drive and about her insight into her condition; and
The appellant does not meet the standards recommended by the CCMTA for re-licencing.
29The appellant maintains she is a safe driver, has a safe driving record and argues that there is no reason her mental health would affect her driving safety. The appellant addressed the Registrar’s concerns
30The appellant testified she had G licence for many years and her driving record provided by the Registrar verified this fact.
31The appellant addressed the psychiatrist’s concerns about her mental health by dismissing the psychiatrist as incompetent. She referred to the examining psychiatrist Dr. Dhaliwal as an “asinine bastard” and to her family doctor Dr. Asecombe as an “arrogant imbecile” who she would never see again. The staff at the Niagara Regional Hospital, she noted, were lazy, just read their novels, played games on their computers, and offered no help or compassion.
32The appellant pointed out that she had been suspended from driving based on one check mark on a poorly designed form provided by the Ministry of Transportation. She noted that none of the medical reports from the psychiatrist or the Niagara Region Hospital commented on her driving or stated that she should not drive. She testified repeatedly that they discharged her on no medication and sent her from the hospital without telling her not to drive
33The appellant addressed the failure to have the mental health questionnaire completed. Her position was that the form was never sent to her, and she had not received the form.
34The appellant denied that she has a mental health condition. She stated that she instead has emotions like all other people. She testified that many people like Sophie Gregoire and Margaret Trudeau have emotional issues and the Registrar has not taken their licence away. She testifies she is being unfairly picked on by the police, the Registrar and the Tribunal
35The appellant maintains she functionally capable of safe driving but is unwilling to answer questions about her condition put to her by the Registrar or the Tribunal as she feels there is no need to respond as she is perfectly normal.
36The appellant has not been able to maintain a relationship with her family doctor, whom she feels is incompetent. She will be looking into finding a new family doctor.
37Near end of the hearing the appellant testified she had sent the hospital records from the Niagara Regional Hospital to Mr. Kyle Beal, a representative of the Registrar, but not the representative assigned to this hearing. Initially the Registrar indicated those records had not been sent. After a pause and a search, the Registrar located the records and shared them with the Tribunal and the appellant. After the parties had time to review the documents (Exhibit 4) and with consent of all parties the hearing continued to conclusion. The appellant testified this was another example of people trying to conspire against her and it was her opinion that suspension of licence should be dropped immediately as the process was unfair.
38The CCMTA details, and I accept, the dangers of permitting drivers with an uncontrolled psychiatric condition to operate vehicles on the highway. It recommends that drivers with a psychiatric condition may be suitable for relicensing if their condition is stable, they have the insight into their condition and the ability to stop driving if their condition gets worse, they have the functional ability to drive, and a medical care provider recommends a return to driving.
39The evidence presented and the failure complete the mental health questionnaire or answer questions about her medical condition supports the Registrar’s submissions. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle safely. A review of the evidence and the appellant’s submissions and testimony shows that she has a mental health condition that she refuses to acknowledge, and that none of the conditions recommended for relicensing outlined in the CCMTA recommendations have been met.
E. ORDER:
40For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Peter Savage, Member
RELEASED: March 10, 2022