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:
Peter McConnell
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION & ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Peter McConnell, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Observer(s):
Stephen Grootenboer, Agent Laura Goulet, LAT Member
Heard by teleconference:
March 30, 2022
Background
1By letter dated January 31, 2022, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) advised Peter McConnell (the “appellant”) that his licence was being suspended for medical reasons. This decision was made after the respondent received an unsolicited letter, dated January 28, 2022, from an emergency room physician indicating a condition of substance use disorder for alcohol.
2In its letter, the respondent asked the appellant to submit additional information to its Medical Review Team. Specifically, the respondent was seeking confirmation of a diagnosis of severe 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 he had successfully completed an alcohol treatment program.
Issue
3The issue to be determined is whether the appellant’s medical condition, if any, is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
Result
4For the reasons set out below, we confirm the respondent’s decision.
Law
5The 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).”
6One 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;
7Section 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.
8Under 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.
9The 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
10The appellant states that he does not drink and drive and has never been fined for an infraction under the Highway Traffic Act (the “HTA”). He acknowledges being admitted to Georgian Bay General Hospital on January 29, 2022, however, argues that it was due to severe depression and anxiety and not as a direct result of alcoholism. He states that at no point did any attending physician at either Georgian Bay General Hospital or Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care (Waypoint) discuss their concerns regarding alcohol use and driving.
11The appellant explained that following his admission to hospital, he was subsequently admitted to Waypoint for 25 days. He states that he did not experience any side effects from withdrawal, and he has engaged in regular addiction counselling. He states that he agreed to remain in hospital and at Waypoint to receive support and medication to manage and improve his mental health.
12During his testimony, the appellant stated that it had been over 29 days since his last drink. He also referred to a diagnosis of depression and anxiety which he has suffered from for more than 5 years. He states that he agreed to continue his antidepressant and antianxiety medication upon discharge and with the understanding that he would be monitored by Waypoint’s outpatient department, Chigamik Community Health Centre and Canadian Mental Health Association. He then went on to state that he is committed to his sobriety.
13At the hearing, the appellant explained that he is unable to attend work or attend his medical appointments without his driver’s licence. He also states that he is not able to meet with any family members, who are a vital part of his support system and key to his wellbeing. We did not receive any evidence that the appellant had missed any doctor’s appointments. He is also on social assistance and is not working at the moment.
14The appellant argues that not being able to work and/or access his familial support jeopardizes his financial and emotional wellbeing.
15The respondent cited its concerns regarding uncontrolled alcohol use disorder. It argues that the appellant’s medical condition will significantly interfere with his ability to safely operate a vehicle. The appellant has also not provided the necessary information to its consideration of licence reinstatement.
16The respondent also testified on documentary evidence from a Dynacare Laboratories report dated March 11, 2022, which shows a positive detection for cannabinoids (THCA). The lab findings also showed negative detection for ethyl alcohol.
17As a result of the laboratory report, the respondent issued another letter dated March 28, 2022, stating that the appellant’s licence would remain suspended. The appellant was once again asked to provide a completed Substance Use form prepared by his healthcare practitioner.
18The appellant countered that he has a new healthcare practitioner who does not feel comfortable filling out the Substance Use form since she has only known him for a short period.
19During the hearing, the appellant admitted that his past drinking habit was the result of boredom. He feels he was not properly screened for mental health disorder at the hospital and has a history of depression and anxiety. He also described a condition of post traumatic stress disorder as a result of a death that occurred in the workplace. There was no evidence brought to the hearing to substantiate these claims.
20The appellant testified that he is feeling the best he ever has in the past 5 years. He has joined Alcoholics Anonymous and has lost 15 pounds. He claims to have remained abstinent from alcohol and states that he has been meeting with his counsellor 3 times per week, although this information has not been confirmed. He explained that he is committed to getting his life back on track, however, not having his licence prevents him from regaining his confidence and self-esteem.
21During cross examination, the appellant admitted to drinking 18 beers per day. He also uses recreational marijuana. He states that he has an appointment with a psychiatrist tomorrow (March 31, 2022) and has also been in touch with Waypoint outpatient services and the Canadian Mental Health Association. The appellant explained that he also has an underlying medical condition, namely diabetes, which he was diagnosed with about 5-6 years ago.
22Although the appellant stated that the loss of his licence prevents him from working, we note that he is currently on Ontario Works and does not require a vehicle at this time for work purposes.
Appellant’s Witness
23The appellant’s mother testified at the hearing on behalf of her son. She confirms that he suffers from depression and anxiety. She states that he has been unwell for some time, but he has made it clear to herself and the rest of the family that he is committed to getting his life on track. She also testified that his attendance at Waypoint appears to have improved his condition and personal outlook.
24Regardless of this, the respondent maintains its position that the appellant suffers from a serious alcohol use disorder. There is no other evidence except the lab result which shows negative for ethyl alcohol. There is no formal medical opinion. The respondent’s request that the diagnosis be confirmed is still outstanding. The respondent also does not agree that there has been a substantial improvement in the appellant’s condition that would warrant reinstatement of his licence.
25The respondent states that it has not received any additional medical reports from the appellant and no evidence to suggest that his conditions have improved. As a result, it is the respondent’s position that it is reasonable and supported by law on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s licence should remain suspended and that his current medical condition will interfere with his ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
26In 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 his ability to drive safely.
Does the appellant have a medical condition?
27At the hearing, the Tribunal received evidence regarding an unsolicited medical report confirming the appellant’s alcohol use disorder. At certain times during the hearing, the appellant acknowledged the seriousness of his condition. At other times, he appears to minimize his condition and focus his attention on other mental health issues (i.e., depression and anxiety). While we do not dispute the challenges he has experienced as a result of his mental health condition, his alcohol use disorder remains outstanding and unresolved.
28The appellant is commended for attending Waypoint and trying to make positive changes in his life. There is an abundance of evidence that the appellant does have a condition. The appellant’s admission that he suffers from alcohol use disorder and the fact that he is trying to maintain his sobriety supports a finding that he has a medical condition capable of satisfying the first element of the test.
Is this condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely?
29The appellant maintains that he does not drink and drive and has never been charged for any HTA infractions. He maintains that he has not consumed alcohol for approximately one month. Furthermore, he has attended Waypoint and sought follow up counselling with a psychiatrist.
30We are concerned that the appellant has only maintained sobriety for a short time which is not enough to convince us of his progress towards long term management of his addiction. The appellant’s drinking habits (e.g., consuming 18 beers per day) and the fact that he drinks when bored, is concerning to us since there was nothing to indicate that his personal circumstances have changed or that he has had a long enough period of sobriety.
31The appellant has been unable to provide the respondent with a medical opinion that confirms his condition will not interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
32The 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: [see 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.
33Finally, it is the respondent’s position that not enough time has elapsed to consider lifting the licence suspension.
Conclusion
34We find that the appellant suffers from a condition of alcohol use disorder. While he is commended for his recent efforts, he has not abstained from alcohol long enough to provide any reassurance to us that his alcohol use disorder is under control and/or fully resolved.
35The appellant also provided no medical evidence in favour of his driver’s licence reinstatement with the exception of a single laboratory result. Even then, the screening showed a presence for cannabinoids as the appellant is a recreational marijuana user. There was no information on how this drug use may interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle.
36Finally, we find that the appellant minimized his alcohol use at times during the hearing. He appears to deflect attention from his alcohol use disorder by focussing on his depression and anxiety. We accept the fact that he may suffer from these mental health issues, however, the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder as noted in the unsolicited report remains unaddressed.
37In the end we find that the appellant has not been able to demonstrate a significant period of sobriety to give assurance that his addiction is under control.
38Along 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.
39We find that the appellant’s effort in attending Waypoint to be commendable, however, he appears to be in the early stages of change and will need more time to address his alcohol use disorder and accompanying depression and anxiety.
40The 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 his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Therefore, the respondent’s decision is confirmed.
WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
41For 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.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
_____________________________
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member
____________________________
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
Released: June 8, 2022