Kyle Fyke v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 46853

Date: 2022-05-20

Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H. 8, from a decision of the Minister of Transportation pursuant to section 47(1) of the Act to suspend Driving Privileges

Between

Kyle Fyke

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member; Stephen Scharbach, Member

Appearances:

For the Appellant: Kyle Fyke, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Overview

1The appellant appeals a decision by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend his driver’s licence on medical grounds.

2According to the Registrar, the available medical information indicates that the appellant suffers from two conditions that affect his ability to drive safely – substance use disorder and a mental health condition.

3In the appellant’s view, he does not presently suffer from any condition that affects his ability to drive safely. He states that his physician has provided confirmation of that to the Registrar and the continued suspension is unreasonable and unwarranted.

4After carefully reviewing the available evidence, we have concluded that the appellant does suffer from a medical condition that is likely to significantly affect his ability to drive and we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence.

THE LAW

5The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act (the “Act”) and s.14(1) of Ontario Regulation 340/94 (“Regulation”) to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence if the driver suffers from any physical or mental condition likely to significantly interfere with the driver’s ability to operate a motor vehicle safely.

6A person whose licence is suspended on medical grounds may appeal the suspension to this Tribunal and, following a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision of the Registrar.

7In determining whether a person suffers from a condition that may disqualify him/her from holding a driver’s licence, the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the medical standards set out in the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”).

8Those standards have been developed and published in order to establish consistent national medical standards for assessing driving eligibility. While they are relevant and may be considered, the CCMTA Standards are not binding on either the Registrar or the Tribunal.

9Sections 14.6 and 15.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards are relevant in this case.

10Section 14.6 deals with eligibility for licencing of people who suffer from psychiatric disorders. The section states that a person who suffers a psychiatric disorder is eligible for licencing if (among other things) the condition is stable, the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if the condition becomes acute and the driver’s treating physician supports a return to driving.

11Section 15.6.3 deals with eligibility for licencing of people who suffer from substance use disorder in relation to alcohol and illicit drugs, including cocaine and methamphetamines. The section states that such people are eligible for licencing if (among other things):

• they have abstained from the substance for 12 months,
• Earlier re-licencing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

12On or about December 4, 2021, the Registrar received an unsolicited report from a Wellington County OPP officer. The report stated that the appellant was apprehended by the police under the Mental Health Act after an incident in which the appellant was behaving erratically and drove his car aggressively in a Tim Horton’s parking lot and almost ran over three people. According to the report, the appellant believed he was being followed. Cocaine use was suspected.

13On December 14, 2021, the Registrar informed the appellant that his licence would be suspended because the Registrar received information suggesting that he suffered from conditions that affected his ability to safely drive – a mental health condition and a substance use disorder.

14The Registrar informed the appellant that to be considered for reinstatement, he would have to arrange for his physician to complete and submit to the Registrar an assessment report form for each suspected condition. The information was requested to clarify whether the appellant suffered from the conditions and if so, to what extent.

15The Registrar’s medical review file was placed into evidence. Unfortunately, the file was very poorly maintained - some documents were incomplete and the dates that some documents were received were unclear.

16However, it appears that the appellant’s physician did submit both assessment forms, or at least portions of them.

17The mental health disorder assessment form was apparently submitted by the physician. However, the copy on the Registrar’s file includes only the first and third pages of the four-page document. The physician’ signature page is missing and the date it was received by the Registrar is unclear. However, on the first page of the form, the physician reports that the appellant’s primary mental illness is substance use and his most recent episode occurred less than three months before.

18The physician included emergency room hospital records from two recent admissions (summarised below) which provided additional confirmation that the appellant suffered from a substance use disorder and a mental health disorder.

Admission December 14-17, 2021 – Guelph General Hospital – appellant was brought to the hospital by police due to psychosis. Hospital records indicates the appellant was suffering from paranoia and thoughts that he was being followed. The appellant was discharged three days later. He admitted to using methamphetamine on the date he was admitted, and the report indicates that the appellant “does have a history of polysubstance abuse.” The discharge diagnosis was noted as “substance induced psychosis, cleared, secondary to methamphetamine use r/o stimulant use disorder.”

Admission January 12-13, 2022 – Guelph General Hospital – appellant was brought to the hospital by police after making suicidal comments to his girlfriend. According to hospital records, the appellant was experiencing hallucinations and paranoia and felt he was being followed. His family reported a mental health decline for the past two months. The records mention drug use including cocaine and methamphetamines, and state that the appellant was “seen in ER three times for same recently”.

19That information was reviewed by the Registrar who responded to the appellant on March 1, 2022. The Registrar stated that the appellant’s licence would remain suspended. In order to be considered for reinstatement, the appellant would have to provide confirmation from a heath care practitioner of improvement of his mental health condition and a three-month period of emotional and mental stability.

20It appears that at that point, the Registrar had not yet received the substance use assessment form from the appellant’s physician. As a result, the Registrar’s March 1, 2022, letter included that form and asked that it also be completed.

21Although it is not entirely clear from the state of the Registrar’s file, it appears that around that time the appellant’s physician submitted the substance use assessment form, or a portion of it.

22The Registrar’s file only contains the first of two pages, and the date on which it was received is unknown. It is unclear whether the physician only sent one page in error or the Register’s staff failed to preserve the second page. In any case, on the first page of the form the physician states that the appellant suffers from “severe substance use disorder as per recent hospital admission”.

23That information was reviewed by the Registrar who sent a letter to the appellant on March 29, 2022 stating that his licence would remain suspended due to his two reported conditions - “alcohol use disorder” and “mental health”. That reference to alcohol use disorder appears to have been made in error. The medical information indicates that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder.

24The Registrar’s letter went on to say that in order to be reinstated the appellant would have to submit confirmation from a health care professional confirming that that:

• he has remained abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year which may be reduced to 6 months if he completes an alcohol treatment program,
• his condition has improved, the condition has been successfully treated or resolved, and that he has had a three-month period of mental and emotional stability.

25Although the reference to alcohol use disorder was in error and no doubt confusing to the appellant, the Registrar sent a subsequent letter confirming the requirements for reinstatement which correctly referred to substance use disorder.

26The appellant states that his physician completed and submitted a positive substance use assessment form. According to the Registrar’s file, on March 25, 2022, the Registrar received a received a fax from the appellant’s physician. The cover page indicates that the fax is 7 pages long, but the file only contains one page - the first uncompleted page of the substance use assessment form.

27In a letter dated March 31, 2022 the Registrar apparently responded to the appellant about the physician’s fax. The letter states:

The ministry has reviewed your case in light of the subsequent report filed on your behalf.

However, further information is required. If you already submitted a report this request is being made because the previously requested information was not received or did not fully address the ministry’s concerns,

28Although this letter appears to alert the appellant that the information received so far was inadequate to address the Register’s concerns, no further assessments or any confirmation of improvement or treatment has been received from the appellant’s physician since then, and none was provided by the appellant to the Tribunal at the hearing

DECISION

29Under s. 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside a decision of the Register made under s. 47 of the Act. In this case we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

30The Registrar’s initial decision to suspend the appellant’s licence was based on credible information submitted by the police after an involuntary hospitalisation. The incident that led to the hospitalisation involved the appellant’s aggressive use of a motor vehicle that endangered three other people, all while apparently suffering from a substance use disorder and a mental health condition. In the Tribunal’s view, it was appropriate for the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s licence and request additional medical information to clarify his condition.

31The Registrar obtained additional information from the appellant’s physician. It included hospital records from two recent hospitalisations and confirmed the presence of both conditions. The Registrar’s medical file concerning the appellant is surprisingly incomplete for unknown reasons. However, it seems clear that the information received from the appellant and his physician does not adequately address the medical concerns that led to the suspension.

32The Registrar has set out what will be required before reinstatement of the appellant’s licence can be considered – essentially confirmation from a health care professional of a one-year substance free period (possibly six months if the appellant completes a treatment program), and successful treatment or resolution of the mental condition, along with a three-month period of mental and emotional stability.

33Those requirements are consistent with the CCMTA Standards described above and appear to be appropriate and warranted in this case.

ORDER

34Pursuant to s. 50 (2) of the Highway Traffic Act, the decision of the Registrar to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.