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 to suspend a licence.
Between:
Andrew Kovacs
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
Adjudicators: Dr. Peter Savage, M.D. Jennifer Friedland, Member
Appearances:
For Appellant: Self-represented For Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, representative
Date & Location of Hearing December 17, 2021 by teleconference
A. Overview
1The appellant appeals from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, suspending his driver’s licence pursuant to s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8 (the HTA). This provision allows the Registrar to suspend a licence in certain circumstances, including where a person suffers from a mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability (“a medical condition”) likely to significantly interfere with their ability to safely drive a motor vehicle.
2In this case, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence followed the receipt of a Medical Condition Report dated September 23, 2021 from the appellant’s psychiatrist. The report was sparse in detail but identified the appellant as suffering from a moderate cognitive impairment.
3A subsequent report completed by the appellant’s physician on November 16, 2021 confirmed that the appellant suffers from schizophrenia and recommended that his driver’s licence be canceled. This doctor also recommended that the appellant see a psychiatrist and that he undergo a functional driving assessment to evaluate the impact of his medical condition on his ability to drive1.
4The appellant acknowledges that he has schizophrenia and that he is “not the best driver.” Nonetheless, he wishes to have his licence returned primarily so that he can drive to get groceries. This task is difficult for him without a car, particularly in winter.
5The Registrar echoes the recommendations of the appellant’s doctor and recommends further psychiatric evaluation as well as a functional driver’s assessment before considering whether to reinstate the appellant’s licence.
B. Result
6For the reasons given below, the Tribunal agrees with the Registrar that the appellant’s licence should remain suspended at this time. If he wishes to have his licence reinstated, the appellant should follow the steps outlined by the Registrar. This includes obtaining a further psychiatric report and successfully completing a functional driving assessment.
C. Law
7The purpose of the licence provisions of the HTA is to “protect the public.” Section 31 (a) describes that one of the ways this is done is by ensuring that:
the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely.
8Section 14(1)(a) of Ontario Regulation 340/94 (“the Regulation”) specifies that:
An applicant for or 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 ...
9Section 47(1)(g) of the HTA allows the Registrar to suspend a person’s driving licence for a “sufficient reason.” One such sufficient reason is if the person suffers from a medical condition as set out in the above Regulation.
10Section 14(2) of the Regulation goes on to state that:
In determining whether an applicant for or a holder of a driver’s licence of any class meets the qualifications described in subsection (1), the Minister,
a) may take into consideration the relevant medical standards for applicants or holders of that class of driver’s licence set out in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers; and
b) may require the applicant or holder to provide evidence satisfactory to the Minister that he or she is able to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely, including,
(i) any reports of examinations under section 15, and
(ii) any additional medical information. O. Reg. 453/10, s. 1.
11One of the examinations that a driver may have to undergo, pursuant to s. 15 (1) (b) of the Regulation, includes:
… a demonstration of the person’s ability to drive safely …
D. Facts
12According to the medical reports in evidence before us, the appellant suffers from schizophrenia. He does not dispute this diagnosis.
13The appellant’s licence had previously been suspended in or around 1995 following a similar diagnosis and report to the Registrar. It was then reinstated in 2005 after his psychiatrist at the time confirmed his ongoing mental and emotional stability and his compliance with treatment.
14The evidence was sparse as to what prompted this more recent report to the Registrar about the appellant’s mental health condition. The appellant did, however, state that he now had a new psychiatrist but preferred the old one. He did not otherwise elaborate on his mental health other than to suggest (repeatedly) that chemotherapy injections would assist him. He stated that he had brain cancer at one point but that he had cured it with aspirin. He described that a friend of his took chemotherapy injections and found that they worked so he also wanted to try this. He thought such injections would improve his memory and judgment.
15The appellant wants his driver’s licence back primarily so that he can drive for groceries. To his credit, however, he acknowledged having “lots of accidents” and that he “was not the best driver.” His driving record was in evidence and confirmed this history.
16The Registrar has requested that the appellant provide a specific report on his mental health condition and pass a functional driving assessment before being considered to have his licence reinstated. The appellant has not yet done so but was not opposed to taking those steps.
17The Registrar also referred us to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) Medical Standards for Drivers which provides guidelines for assessing whether a person with certain medical conditions should be allowed a driver’s licence. Chapter 6 addresses people with cognitive impairment and recommends that a functional driving assessment be completed to evaluate whether a person can drive safely. Chapter 14 addresses people with psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia, and stresses that assessment must rely primarily on the clinical judgment of health care professionals involved in treatment. As well, under this section a functional driving assessment is recommended in certain cases.
E. Analysis & Conclusion
18There are two parts to our analysis of the Registrar’s proposal to suspend the appellant’s licence: does the appellant have a medical condition and does that medical condition make it likely that he is unsafe to drive. The Registrar carries the onus on a balance of probabilities to show each aspect of the analysis is met.
19In this particular case, the first part of the analysis is largely admitted by the appellant. He admits he has schizophrenia. He did not specifically address the diagnosis of mild/moderate cognitive impairment, nor did he present evidence to call into question the Registrar’s medical evidence. That evidence satisfies us that the appellant has mild/moderate cognitive impairment and schizophrenia.
20We are also satisfied that the Registrar has shown that the appellant’s condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Of particular note is the appellant’s admissions of having “lots of accidents” and that he “was not the best driver.” We find these admissions go to the core of the safety concern. When weighed with the provisions of the CCMTA, we are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. We therefore confirm the decision of the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s licence.
F. Order
21Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal confirms the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence under s.47(1) of the Act.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Peter Savage, M.D.
_______________________ Jennifer Friedland, Member
Released: January 12, 2022