Amritpal Aujla v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 33252

Date: 2022-04-25

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:

Amritpal Aujla Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicator: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: No one appeared, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference: April 7, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW:

1On November 24, 2020, 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 substance use disorder, a condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his 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, substance use disorder, which is likely to significantly Interfere with his 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

10There had been 7 adjournments of this hearing. Following the last adjournment, the Tribunal ruled that the hearing would proceed on a peremptory basis.

11The appellant failed to appear at the time set for the commencement of the hearing. The Case Management Officer (“CMO”) with carriage of the file had attempted to contact the appellant several times in the week prior to the hearing and left messages on the phone and on email. On the morning of the hearing the CMO called and emailed the appellant but was unable to contact him.

12As the appellant did not appear and did not contact LAT or the Registrar with any explanation for his failure to appear, it was the Registrar’s position that the hearing should continue as there had been so many adjournments and the appellant had not submitted any medical evidence despite being given ample time to obtain this evidence.

13The right to a hearing is an essential cornerstone in administrative proceedings such as these, but the right is limited to notice of the hearing and the right to attend and present the case. The appellant has chosen not to exercise that right. He had notice of the date and time for the hearing. He was aware that today’s hearing had been marked peremptory and there would be no further adjournments. He failed to submit documents in a timely manner or appear at the appointed time. The hearing proceeded in his absence.

E. Does the appellant suffer from a substance use disorder?

14The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder based on the unsolicited medical report of Dr. Norman Tugg, an emergency room physician, dated November 17, 2020.

15Dr. Tugg indicated the appellant abandoned his car on the Don Valley Parkway. He further notes this action was taken while the appellant was under the influence of methamphetamine.

16In his notice of appeal, the appellant states that there must be some sort of misunderstanding and doesn’t understand why the Registrar had suspended his licence.

17At the case conference May 13, 2021, the appellant stated he disagrees with the diagnosis of substance use disorder and will be having his physician submit the substance use questionnaire very shortly. He has not submitted the substance use questionnaire despite many reminders.

18The only medical evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder.

19On the basis of balance of probabilities, I find that the Registrar has established the appellant has a substance use disorder.

b. If the appellant suffers from a medical condition, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

20The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find that the Registrar has met that burden.

21The Registrar drew my attention to the CCMTA (Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators) standards and recommendations. The Registrar pointed out the dangers that a substance use disorder could cause while driving. The Registrar outlined the requirements that would be needed to consider licence reinstatement. The Registrar’s position is that reinstatement of the licence cannot be considered until medical evidence is received indicating stability of the substance use disorder identified by Dr. Tugg.

22Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation states that the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers may be considered when determining whether a driver should be licenced. The standards are not binding on me; however, I accept and apply them to my decision here.

23The Registrar made the following submissions with respect to how the appellant’s condition affects the appellant’s ability to drive safely:

1. The appellant’s condition is confirmed by an emergency room physician;

2. The appellant has failed to provide a completed substance use questionnaire or any comparable medical evidence to dispute the condition or to provide any update on stability or treatment;

3. The appellant denied he has a substance use disorder at the case conference but has failed to produce any confirmatory evidence in the intervening 11 month despite reminders;

4. There is no evidence from a medical professional recommending a return to driving;

5. The appellant does not meet the standards recommended by the CCMTA for re-licencing.

6. The Registrar outlined the dangers caused by driving while using substances such as methamphetamine.

24The CCMTA details, and I accept, the dangers of permitting drivers with a substance use disorder to operate vehicles on the highway. It recommends that drivers with a substance use disorder may be suitable for relicensing if their condition is stable, they have abstained from such substances for 12 months, are not functionally impaired, and a medical care provider recommends a return to driving. I have no evidence that any of these conditions have been met.

25My review of the evidence shows that the appellant has a substance use disorder, and that none of the conditions recommended for relicensing outlined in the CCMTA recommendations have been met. Combined with the appellant’s failure to complete the substance use questionnaire or provide any medical evidence that might address the public safety concerns, I am persuaded by the Registrar’s submissions. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

E. ORDER:

26For 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.