Robert Rasi v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 20124

Original Date: 2022-03-16

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 pursuant to section 47(1) of that Act – to suspend a licence

Between:

Robert Rasi

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

PANEL: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Robert Rasi

For the Respondent: Stella Velocci, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: March 8, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW

1This is an appeal from a decision of the respondent, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”), to suspend the appellant’s class G driver's licence. The suspension took effect June 20, 2021 and the cause of the suspension was the appellant’s alleged alcohol use disorder.

B. ISSUE

2The legal issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, specifically, alcohol use disorder, and whether this condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

C. CONCLUSION

3For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant does suffer from a medical condition however this condition is not likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely. Accordingly, the decision by the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence is set aside.

D. LAW

4The Registrar has the authority 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 for any grounds listed in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section. Paragraph (g) states that a licence maybe suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e), or (f).”

5One 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.

6Sections 203.1, 203.2 and 204 of the HTA state as follows:

Every prescribed person shall report to the Registrar every person who is at least 16 years old who, in the opinion of the prescribed person, has or appears to have a prescribed medical condition, functional impairment or visual impairment. 2015, c. 14, s. 55.

A prescribed person may report to the Registrar a person who is at least 16 years old who, in the opinion of the prescribed person, has or appears to have a medical condition, functional impairment or visual impairment that may make it dangerous for the person to operate a motor vehicle. 2015, c. 14, s. 55.

A report required or authorized by section 203 must be submitted in the form and manner specified by the Registrar and must include,

(a) the name, address and date of birth of the reported person.

(b) the condition or impairment diagnosed or identified by the person making the report,

(c) any other information requested by the form. 2015, c. 14, s. 55.

7Subsection 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 enacted under the HTA requires that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from “any…physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.”

8Section 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 Minister of Transportation or on this Tribunal.

9The 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.

10Pursuant 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.

E. EVIDENCE and PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS

Registrar’s evidence

11The Registrar reviewed the sections of the HTA that the Ministry relied upon to suspend the appellant’s G-class licence, including section 14(2)(b)(ii), which empowers the Ministry to request information about a condition that may affect the appellant’s ability to drive and requires licence-holders to provide the requested information.

12The Registrar received an unsolicited medical report dated July 01, 2021 from Dr. Farid Araki, an emergency physician at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH). This report stated the appellant had an uncontrolled substance use disorder and specified alcohol. A further unsolicited medical report was received from a Dr. Zhou from CAMH on August 25, 2021, again documenting a substance abuse condition related to alcohol.

13The Registrar sent a letter to the appellant informing them of the report and suspending their class G driver’s licence. The letter indicated the licence was suspended based on an alcohol use disorder. The letter included a substance use assessment questionnaire to be filled out by the appellant’s health care provider.

14The Registrar pointed out the substance use assessment had not been returned following the appellant’s attendance at alcohol rehabilitation. The Registrar noted that a letter in support of reinstating the appellant’s licence had been received from Dr. Tim Woodcock on February 10, 2022, as well as documentation from Hope Place rehabilitation Centre confirming a period of detox followed by a thirty-day alcohol treatment program.

15The Registrar responded to this report stating the licence remained under suspension and consideration or reinstatement would only occur after a year of proven abstinence or a shorter period of six months if proof of attendance at a recognized alcohol treatment program was provided.

16The Registrar pointed out a previous licence suspension for alcohol abuse and documented the past history of relapse following treatment of alcohol abuse.

17The Registrar pointed out that the CCMTA was a group of road safety experts from across Canada. The CCMTA made recommendations regarding driving safety and the effect of medical conditions on the ability to drive a motor vehicle. The agent noted that the recommendations of the CCMTA were recommendations and not the law.

18The Registrar pointed out the dangers substance abuse could present while driving. The CCMTA Standards outlines the dangers of substance abuse. The Registrar directed us to section 15.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards. This section recommends a period of 12 months of abstinence or a lesser period of abstinence if a recognized treatment program has been completed. The Registrar agreed that the lesser period was not defined by the CCMTA.

19The Registrar noted the fact that the appellant’s testimony revealed he had been in treatment previously and had relapses resulting in the current diagnosis of alcohol use disorder and the most recent licence suspension. The Registrar stressed the danger of relapse happening again resulting in impairment of the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

20The Registrar drew attention to the appellant’s driving record. There were no reports of any infractions.

21The Registrar pointed out that the medical evidence confirms a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. The Registrar also stated the appellant has taken very positive steps, however not enough time has passed to be sure the appellant will stay alcohol free and a longer period of suspension is needed. The Registrar’s position was that a full six months of abstinence was the minimum period that would be accepted by the Ministry of Transportation.

Appellant’s evidence

22The appellant testified in a direct and open manner.

23The appellant admitted that at the time of suspension he had a condition associated with alcohol. The appellant stressed that at the time of the hearing in March 2022, the condition is completely under control.

24The appellant testified that on July 1, 2021, the emergency doctor at CAMH recommended immediate cessation of alcohol consumption and immediate admission to detox. The appellant further testified that detox and admission to CAMH was not available at that time and he had no choice but to leave.

25The appellant testified the emergency doctor did not inform him that he should not drive.

26The appellant stated he continued to drink intermittently until November 2, 2021, when he gained admission to detox and follow up admission to Hope Place Addiction Centre. He stopped drinking immediately and has not drank since the admission to detox and subsequent admission to Hope Place.

27The appellant drew our attention to a letter dated February 10, 2022 from Dr. Woodcock, his family doctor for the last two years. Dr. Woodcock’s letter states that the appellant is physically fit to drive and endorses the reinstatement of his driver’s licence even though 6 months has not elapsed since his last drink of alcohol.

28The appellant testified he was on no medications and did not take any recreational drugs or medications. He specifically testified he had not used cannabis or any of its derivatives.

29The appellant testified that he is a safe driver and has no alcohol convictions and testified he would never drive while his ability was impaired.

30The appellant drew our attention to his certificate of completion of the alcohol program at Hope Place November 10 – December 12, 2021. The appellant spoke of the high quality of the program and staff at the Hope Place Addiction Centre and testified he maintained close ties with the clinic in his follow up.

31In response to the Registrar’s questions about his past remissions the appellant testified that many things had changed and in many ways he was a new man.

a) He has joined AA to help with follow-up and attends meetings 5 or 6 times a week. He finds the meeting helpful and has accepted the fact he is an alcoholic and needs to remain abstinent.

b) He has a sponsor and has a good relationship with him and talks with him several times a week.

c) He has a good family doctor and has a good supportive relationship with him.

d) He now has new friends made at AA and has left behind his friends from the past who were drinkers

e) He is involved with Hope Place follow up and is good friends with 4 of the 7 people he went through the program with.

f) He testified he feels much better physically and emotionally since he has abstained from alcohol. He is happier and has more energy and is enjoying his life much more since abstaining from alcohol.

g) He has come to the realization that he is an alcoholic and is firmly committed to never having another drink of any type of alcohol

h) His work life is now stable and he works installing electronic highway signs and when he gets his licence back he will have options to continue working in this industry all across Canada

i) His home life is stable. He and his landlord share a residence and have no alcohol in the residence and while his landlord is older he has been a good friend and a good influence on the appellant.

F. ANALYSIS

Does the Appellant Suffer from Alcohol Use Disorder?

32We have several pieces of documented medical evidence. First, we have the CAMH emergency physician who indicates on the unsolicited medical report that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder. Secondly, we have the second unsolicited medical report from CAMH in August 2021 confirming the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. We have the letter from the family doctor dated February 10, 2022 as well as the certificate of completion of an inpatient program for alcohol abuse.

33Testimony from the appellant and the two unsolicited medical condition reports confirm the presence of an alcohol use disorder.

34Considering all of the above, I am satisfied that the appellant had a medical condition of alcohol use disorder. I also believe the emergency physician’s concerns regarding driving safety were valid at the time of the suspension.

Is the appellant’s alcohol use disorder likely to significantly affect the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

35Having determined the appellant had a condition, namely alcohol use disorder, I must now determine whether the Registrar has discharged its burden of proving that this condition is likely to significantly affect the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

36There is medical evidence available to assist in making a determination of the effect the condition may have on the appellant’s ability to drive. Dr. Woodcock’s letter of February 10, 2022 clearly states that medical examination shows no contraindication to driving and Dr. Woodcock clearly states his opinion that the appellant should have his licence reinstated.

37As well as the medical evidence, I am very much assisted in making the determination of safety to drive by the appellant’s testimony and documentation.

38The appellant has a perfect driving record.

39The appellant completed an inpatient detox and rehabilitation program at a recognized residential treatment facility.

40The appellant is regularly following up with the rehabilitation facility as well as regularly attending AA and meeting with his sponsor.

41The appellant acknowledges the fact he is an alcoholic and resuming drinking will endanger his life and he testifies he will not resume drinking.

42The appellant’s work life is stable and even without his driver’s licence he continues to hold down a regular job. This job will have more possibilities when he regains his licence.

43The appellant’s personal life is stable. He lives in an alcohol-free residence with a landlord who is a friend and a mentor to the appellant. He has changed his friend base and no longer interacts with his previous friends who continue to drink.

44The appellant has a supportive family doctor who is aware of his past problem with alcohol and who now finds him stable and safe to drive and will continue to monitor him.

45The Registrar points out the CCMTA guidelines which outline the dangers of severe alcohol use disorder. The Registrar points out that not enough time has passed to be sure the appellant will be compliant. The guidelines suggest a year of abstinence unless an accredited program has been taken. If an accredited program has been completed, then a shorter time is indicated. The MTO has decided that period should be six months, but this is their suggestion and is not the law. The Registrar testifies that every case should be judged on its own merits, however they do rely upon the CCMTA Guidelines for the proposition that that six-month free of alcohol is the minimum amount of time needed to consider licence reinstatement.

46The Registrar pointed out that the appellant had been in rehab but had returned to drinking within a year and this could happen again. The appellant argued that things were different at this time and the guidance he has received at rehab, the support of AA and Hope Place, his sponsor, and his new friends will prevent him from any possible relapse.

47The appellant’s position was that his licence was suspended to prevent him from driving in the period he was at risk and that this period of risk has passed.

48The appellant’s position was that he has complied with all the steps his doctor had suggested, and he was going to follow through with AA and outpatient therapy. Waiting a few more weeks to achieve some arbitrary period of time was not needed.

49The CCMTA Standards are not binding on the Tribunal, though the Regulation refers to them specifically and gives the Minister the authority to consider them in making medical suspension decisions. In my view, the CCMTA Standards should be accorded significant weight in medical suspension cases, including in the present case. However, as the appellant pointed out, each case has to be considered individually.

50The Registrar suggests the evidence from the unsolicited medical report is strong enough to establish that the medical condition confirmed by the emergency doctor at CAMH would affect the appellant’s ability to drive safely at this time.

51While I agree that the unsolicited medical report contains enough information to conclude that the appellant suffered from alcohol use disorder, I disagree with the Registrars position that there is enough information to establish that the disorder is to an extent that it would significantly affect the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

52I am mindful that the burden of proof rests with the Registrar in these matters and the Registrar has not shown this condition is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive safely.

53The February 10, 2022 letter from Dr. Woodcock is compelling. This medical doctor has known and treated the appellant for over two years and strongly argues for reinstatement of driving privileges without waiting for the full six months required by the Registrar.

54In light of the above considerations, I conclude the Registrar has not proved on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

55Pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s class G driver’s licence.