Licence Appeal Tribunal
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 driver’s license under subsection 47(1) of the Act.
Between:
Steven Colley
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Constantine Petrou, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant: Steven Colley, Self-represented For the Respondent: Steve Grootenboer, Agent
Heard by Teleconference: June 10, 2022
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview
1By letter dated August 30, 2017, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the Registrar) suspended the appellant’s Class G1 licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”) and requested that his treating physician complete a Substance Use Assessment (“SUA”) form. By letter dated May 31, 2022 the Registrar advised that the appellant’s G1 licence would remain under suspension. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his licence.
2Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.
B. Issue
3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
4To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:
- Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?
- If the appellant does suffer from alcohol use disorder, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
C. The Law
5The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any 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 if the driver suffers from a medical condition or addiction likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely.
7Subsection 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 enacted under the HTA requires that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from “any…physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.”
8Section 203(1) of the Act requires medical professionals to report prescribed medical conditions to the Registrar, while s. 203(2) gives medical professionals the discretion to report medical conditions that they believe might make it dangerous for a person to drive.
9Section 14(2)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA”) Medical Standards for Drivers when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The CCMTA Standards are not binding on the Registrar or on this Tribunal.
10The Registrar has the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that one or more grounds for suspending a driver’s licence has been made out.
11Pursuant to section 50(2) of the HTA, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.
D. Evidence and Analysis
a. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?
12In support of its allegation that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder, the Registrar relies on the letter from the appellant’s physician, Dr. T.M. Creatchman (“Dr. Creatchman”) dated August 27, 2017 and a Substance Use Assessment Form (“SUA form”) from Dr. Creatchman dated May 18, 2022. I note that no Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) was submitted by the Registrar.
13In the letter of August 27, 2017, Dr. Creatchman advised that the appellant had called to report the following:
[C]oncerns that he had about his alcohol consumption. He had been drinking heavily for the past 11/2– 2 months and was up to 26 ounces per day. He reported that he would feel sweaty and jittery after 12 hours of abstinence. This morning he noticed a tremor in his right hand.
14In the SUA form, Dr. Creatchman advised that the appellant suffers from severe substance use disorder with respect to alcohol, illicit substances and cannabinoids. In the SUA form Dr. Creatchman advised that, to his knowledge, the appellant has abstained from alcohol from 6 to 12 months, and from all other substances for a period of greater than or equal to 12 months. With respect to whether the appellant has “completed a supervised treatment plan as a result of this reported condition”, Dr Creatchman advised that it was “Not Applicable” as “patient reports no longer a problem”.
15When questioned as to the absence of the Medical Condition Report (“MCR”), the respondent advised that, often physicians notify the Registrar by way of letter rather than by way of the MCR. The appellant testified that the original letter from Dr. Creatchman was the result of miscommunications. He testified that he did not see Dr. Creatchman, but rather called about a jerking motion in his right hand by the thumb, which he believes may have been the result of an electrolyte imbalance. The appellant further testified that the symptom cleared up on its own without treatment.
16The appellant testified that no medical tests with respect to alcohol use or the use of cannabinoids or illicit substances have been conducted by any physician.
17The appellant testified that in 2017, he was 19 years old and living with a friend. He testified that between he and his friend they may drink 26 ounces of beer on days that they were drinking beer. The appellant testified that he would seldom drink other alcohol as beer was his drink of choice.
18The appellant testified that since 2017 he has moved in with his sister and her husband who are ‘religious’ and have no alcohol in the house. He also testified that since 2017 he lives a quieter life, preferring to work and stay home. He advised that he seldom consumes alcohol. He testified that he had consumed a beer on New Years Eve, December 31, 2021. He further testified that he has not consumed alcohol since that date.
19We find the appellant to be a credible and that his testimony was honest and forthcoming. Since the original reporting in 2017, he appears to understand the consequences of alcohol consumption and has had 5 years to appreciate that. We accept his evidence that he seldomly consumes alcohol. We note from the Extended Driver Record Search for Criminal Convictions submitted by the respondent that there are no alcohol-related infractions.
20The Registrar relies on the letter of August 27, 2017 and the SUA of May 18, 2022. We find that while these documents are some evidence that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder, we are ultimately persuaded by the appellant’s oral testimony regarding his alcohol use.
21As noted, we accept the appellant’s testimony that he seldom consumes alcohol. In appeals involving an allegation of alcohol use disorder, the Registrar sometimes establishes alcohol use through medical evidence such as blood test results. While evidence such as this is not always necessary for the Registrar to prove its case, in this case we are satisfied based on the appellant’s credible testimony that the appellant does not suffer from alcohol use disorder. We find that the Registrar has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder.
b. If the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?
22The Registrar has the burden of establishing, 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. However, as we find that the appellant does not suffer from alcohol use disorder, it is unnecessary to consider whether alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive a vehicle safely.
F. Order
23For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, we set aside the decision of the Registrar.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Dr. Constantine Petrou, Member
Jeffery Campbell, Vice Chair
Released: July 12, 2022