Tribunals Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal
Tribunaux décisionnels Ontario Tribunal d'appel en matière de permis
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 the Act - to suspend a licence.
Between:
Cecilia Changoo Applicant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Dr. Dimitri Louvish and Raymond Ramdayal
Written Submissions By:
For the Applicant: Cecilia Changoo, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
A. OVERVIEW
1The appellant, Cecilia Changoo, requests reconsideration of the Tribunal’s1 decision following a hearing on December 1, 2021. The Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s decision suspending the applicant’s driver’s licence.
2The appellant’s request is on grounds set out in Rule 18.2 of the Tribunal’s Common Rules of Practice and Procedure. Rule 18.2 requires that the party requesting reconsideration establish one or more of the following:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the Rules of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made;
c) The Tribunal heard false evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result; or
d) There is new evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
3The appellant’s request is based on 18.2 (a) and (b).
B. ISSUE
4The issue for determination is whether, on a reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision in light of the parties’ submissions, the decision should be modified.
C. DECISION
5After considering all the evidence we confirm the Tribunal’s decision to suspend the appellant’s licence.
E. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
6The appellant has put forward two grounds for reconsideration of our decision. The first is that the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness.
7We find that the appellant has not put forward any submissions in their reconsideration documents that would indicate the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction. On the contrary, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this type of appeal pursuant to Section 50 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act which states:
50 (1) Every person aggrieved by a decision of the Minister made under subsection 32 (5) for which there is a right of appeal pursuant to a regulation made under clause 32 (14) (n) or a decision or order of the Registrar under section 17 or 47 may appeal the decision to the Tribunal. 2002, c. 18, Sched. P, s. 17: 2014, c. 9, Sched. 2, s. 17 (1).
8In terms of procedural fairness, the appellant referenced documents and cited cases, all of which were taken into consideration and appropriately weighed. Like the other party, the appellant was given the opportunity to provide both oral and documentary evidence at the hearing. There is nothing to suggest an imbalance in the time or consideration spent on the evidence provided by one party over the other.
9The second ground of the request for reconsideration argues that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
10We do not identify any error of law made in this case. The evidence the appellant refers to in her submission is a medical assessment from Dr. C. Ifill, who examined the appellant on November 17, 2021 and stated that she scored the maximum points of 30 (suggesting a normal score) on her cognition and visuospatial/executive functioning. Dr. Infill goes on to state that there is no evidence to support (sic) the previous revocation of her driver’s licence as it appears her condition has improved since her last assessment.
11We do not question the fact that the appellant scored well on this assessment of that the appellant’s condition is improving. The letter provided by Dr. Ifill was considered as it was part of the documents disclosed in the hearing. We remain concerned with the fact that the appellant has not successfully passed a driving assessment. This assessment has been requested by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) for some time as a crucial requirement deemed necessary by their Medical Review Team to confirm her fitness to drive and safely operate a motor vehicle.
12Previous Tribunal decisions including 10998/MED and 11921/MED endorse the importance of completing a functional driving assessment. Notably, 11921/MED states that “performance-based, comprehensive on road driving evaluation remains the most accurate method of determining driving fitness status.”
13In addition to this, 10998/MED references Section 6.4 of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA”) Medical Standards for Drivers guidelines where it states that the “…functional driving assessment is usually the most appropriate means of assessing the effects of the cognitive limitations upon driving…” We found the evidence provided by the respondent offered compelling reason for the appellant to complete this assessment as it would be the most accurate and reliable means of ensuring her fitness to drive. We also take seriously the importance of protecting other road users and the public at large.
CONCLUSION
14After carefully considering the issues raised by the appellant, the Tribunal concludes that there are no grounds for modifying the Tribunal’s decision and order.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: May 27th, 2022