Trischa Moore v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 33247

Date: 2022-04-20

An 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:

Trischa Moore

Appellant

-and-

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION & ORDER

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Peter Savage, M.D., Member Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Trischa Moore, Self-represented

For the Respondent:

Steve Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by teleconference:

February 15, 2022

Background

1By letter dated November 22, 2021, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "respondent") advised Trischa Moore (the "appellant") that her licence was being suspended for medical reasons. This decision was made after the respondent received an unsolicited letter, dated November 15, 2021, from an attending hospitalist physician from Health Sciences North in Sudbury. The medical report indicated a condition of alcohol dependence.

2In its letter, the respondent asked the appellant to submit additional information to its Medical Review Team. Based on this information, it would consider reinstating her driver's licence. Specifically, it was seeking confirmation of a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, completion of a Substance Use Assessment form, and confirmation that the appellant has abstained from alcohol for a one-year period. The respondent also advised the appellant that this period may be reduced to six months if the appellant's healthcare practitioner confirmed that she had successfully completed an alcohol treatment program.

3In the months to follow, the appellant submitted information to the respondent in the form of an undated letter from Dr. S. Bhagavatula, a psychiatrist. This letter confirmed that the appellant had remained sober for the past 6 weeks. Overall, the letter was supportive of reinstating the appellant's driver's licence. However, the respondent's Medical Review Team did not consider the letter sufficient to reinstate the appellant's licence and sent another letter to the appellant dated February 14, 2022, confirming the suspension. The appellant was once again asked to provide a Substance Use Assessment form completed by their healthcare practitioner.

Issue

4The issue to be determined is whether the appellant's medical condition, if any, is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

Result

5For the reasons set out below, we confirm the respondent's decision.

Law

6The respondent has the power under s. 47(1) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver's licence for any of the 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)."

7One 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 that is likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely. Subsection 14(1) of O. Reg. 340/94 (the "Regulation") 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;

8Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister of Transportation ("Minister") 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. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding requirements. In this matter, the Registrar is relying on the CCMTA standard relating to alcohol use disorder.

9Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister may also require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely. The Tribunal may consider whether a driver has complied with such a request.

10The respondent has the burden of establishing the ground for suspending the licence on a balance of probabilities. Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the respondent.

Evidence and Analysis

11The appellant acknowledges that she abused alcohol to cope with the breakdown of her marriage and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time, she and her husband moved in with her mother. The appellant and her husband started consuming significant amounts of wine in the evenings. She states this pattern continued for a while until her husband left her and their children at her mom's home.

12The appellant's alcohol use coincided with the development of significant mental health challenges. To deal with her addiction and mental health conditions, the appellant participated in residential treatment.

13The appellant explained that she would later attend an emergency room to seek help for her mental health condition. At the hospital, the seriousness of the appellant's condition came to light. It was then that the attending physician contacted the Ministry of Transportation.

14The appellant submits that the loss of her licence makes it difficult for her to return to work. During the hearing, she explained that she has never been charged with impaired driving and that she would never consume alcohol over the legal limit. She views her condition as a "short-term addiction" due to COVID-19 and the aftermath of her husband leaving home.

15The respondent submits that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that interferes with her ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. It submits that it has yet to receive the completed Substance Use Assessment form that it requested. When questioned at the hearing why she failed to submit the form, the appellant simply responded that she does not have a drug problem. Evidence-based medical opinion confirming that the appellant can safely drive remains outstanding. The respondent states that at this time its Medical Review Team does not have the requisite information to consider a licence reinstatement.

16In considering this case, there are two elements that need to be satisfied:

a. Does the appellant have a medical condition; and,

b. Will that condition significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely.

Does the appellant have a medical condition?

17At the hearing, the Tribunal received evidence from both the psychiatrist and hospitalist confirming the appellant's alcohol use disorder. However, neither specify whether her condition is mild, moderate or severe. In addition, the letter from her residential treatment centre confirms an alcohol use problem. We considered the fact that her condition was serious enough for her to be granted a bed at the residential treatment program.

18The appellant admits to issues with alcohol and says this is a situational event related to COVID-19 restrictions and anxiety created by marital difficulty and separation from her husband.

19We accept the appellant's testimony regarding the difficult time she has had to endure. We are also concerned with her inability to deal with these circumstances without resorting to alcohol use. There is an abundance of evidence that the appellant does have a condition. The appellant's admission that she suffers from alcohol issue corroborates her diagnosis and supports a finding that she has a medical condition capable of satisfying the first element of the test.

Is this condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely?

20The appellant holds the position that she has a good driving record and no alcohol related convictions. She maintains that she is a safe driver and has never driven a vehicle while over the legal limit of alcohol. Further probing revealed that she has driven after consuming alcohol but believes she was under the limit. The appellant also states that she only carries open liquor in her car when she is bringing unfinished wine home from a dinner party.

21The appellant states that she has not had alcohol since her hospital visit in November 2021. She maintains that on the day of her visit, she had consumed alcohol but that was the only time she drank since her release from the residential treatment facility. She also states that she had recently learned about her husband's infidelity and was having a difficult time dealing with it.

22We are concerned that the appellant relapsed after completing a residential treatment program. She has also only maintained sobriety for a short time which is not enough to convince us of her progress towards long term management of her addiction.

23The appellant has a treatment plan with the help of a psychiatrist and psychologist. The only medication she takes is benzodiazepine for anxiety. It is her opinion that early return of her driver's licence will help her put her life back in order and her doctor has linked return of her licence with improvement of her mental health.

24While we understand the positive impact and motivation licence reinstatement may have on the appellant, we cannot subject the public at large to the potential risk of the appellant driving while having a serious medical condition.

25It is the respondent's position that substance abuse is a serious matter. The doctor's report indicated symptoms of alcohol withdrawal and alcohol abuse. We did not receive any information to counter this position.

26The respondent also stated that as a result of the psychiatrist letter being undated, it is difficult to assess how long the appellant has been alcohol free. We also noted that the psychiatrist did not state that she believed the appellant was safe to drive but did link return of the appellant's licence with possible improvement to her mental health.

27The Substance Use Assessment form was not provided by the appellant despite it being a condition of having a driver's licence that licence-holders submit to the examinations as required by the Registrar: O.Reg 340/94, s. 15(1.1). This form would offer information vital to assessing the possible link between the appellant's alcohol use and unsafe driving. The respondent states that this request had yet to be complied with as of the date of the hearing.

28Finally, it is the respondent's position that not enough time has elapsed to consider lifting the licence suspension, especially since she relapsed and went back to consuming alcohol after her 30-day program in October 2021.

Conclusion

29We find that the appellant suffers from a condition of alcohol use disorder. The fact that she continued to consume alcohol after residential treatment suggests that this problem remains unresolved.

30We also find that the appellant may by at risk of relapse given her past behaviour. She has also provided no medical evidence in favour of her driver's licence reinstatement. She has also railed to provide the completed form which was requested by the respondent.

31In addition, we find that the appellant minimized her alcohol use at times during the hearing. Her stressful personal situation was the stimulus for her turning to alcohol. There is nothing to suggest that her circumstances have changed, and she is still subjected to the same stressors as before.

32In the end we find that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate a significant period of sobriety to give assurance that her addiction is under control.

33Along with the HTA, the respondent relied on section 15.6 of the CCMTA Standards which provides the guidelines for assessment. We agree that the medical standards are clearly established in this guideline and their application in this case are prudent. The appellant has failed in meeting the guideline and presents with an addiction that is neither resolved nor currently being addressed.

34We find that the appellant's effort in attending past alcohol treatment, while commendable, was likely not sufficient to address her issues and more intensive treatment may be necessary to address her addiction and accompanying depression and anxiety.

35The dangers of the impact of alcohol use on highway safety are well known and we take judicial notice of it. Based on a careful consideration of all the evidence before us, we are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Therefore, the respondent's decision is confirmed.

WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:

36For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver licence is confirmed.