Thomas Doiron v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 75230

Between:

Thomas Doiron

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Peter Savage, M.D.

DATE: August 11, 2022

Written Submissions By:

For the Appellant: Thomas Doiron, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Kyle Biel, Agent

A. INTRODUCTION:

1The appellant has requested reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”)’s decision of May 18, 2022, which confirmed the suspension of his driver’s licence for medical reasons. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely. The appellant added further concerns in a second submission on July 21, 2022. The Respondent received a copy of this further submission and chose not to respond to it.

B. RESULT:

2For the reasons that follow, and having considered all written submissions of both parties, I deny the appellant’s request for reconsideration.

C. ANALYSIS:

3A reconsideration is not an appeal nor an opportunity to re-litigate the same points presented at a hearing in search of a different result. The grounds for a request for reconsideration are limited to those set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal, Animal Care Review Board, and Fire Safety Commission Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, Version 1 (October 2, 2017). According to that rule, a request for reconsideration may be granted if:

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 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.

4The onus is on the party seeking reconsideration to establish one or more of the Rule 18 grounds for reconsideration.

5Pursuant to Rule 18.4, the Tribunal may dismiss, vary, confirm or cancel the decision that is the subject of a reconsideration request, or order a re-hearing on all or part of the matter. In the present case, the appellant submits his opinion that the occupational therapist was not competent to assess him for a cognitive deficit. The appellant also stated he felt the occupational therapist suffers from a cognitive deficit herself. The appellant also argues the Tribunal panel hearing the appeal did not include a medical professional and as such the Tribunal acted outside the limits of its authority. The remainder of the appellant’s submission is a review of evidence already presented and considered at the hearing. In his July 21, 2022 submission, the appellant expresses the opinion that the Tribunal showed bias in favour of the respondent. The appellant repeated his concerns that the LAT decision-maker was not professionally qualified to make a diagnosis of cognitive impairment and that the issue of cognitive impairment was not a matter that should have been considered by the Tribunal.

6In his Request for Reconsideration form, the appellant indicates that he relies on Rules 18.2 (c) (there was false or misleading evidence from a witness at the hearing) and Rule 18.2 (d) (there is new evidence that was not previously available at the time of the hearing) as the basis for his reconsideration request. Having reviewed the appellant’s actual written submissions in his request for reconsideration, I consider the appellant to rely on Rules 18.2 (a) and 18.2 (c) instead, and not on Rule 18.2 (d) as the appellant does not introduce any new evidence in his reconsideration request nor does he explain why any such new evidence should be admitted in this reconsideration.

Rule 18.2(a) - did the Tribunal act outside its jurisdiction or violate the rules of procedural fairness?

7The Tribunal did not act outside its jurisdiction or violate procedural fairness. The adjudicator gave both parties, including the appellant, opportunities to provide both oral and documentary evidence at the hearing. The appellant gave evidence at the hearing. The oral testimony and the documents that include medical information about the appellant were considered by the Tribunal. It is open to the Tribunal to give all the evidence presented at the hearing, both by the appellant and the respondent, appropriate weight in coming to a decision. In this case, both the medical doctor and the occupational therapist did written testing for cognitive impairment and found none. The occupational therapist went further during the driving tests and noted evidence of cognitive impairment that affected the appellant’s ability to drive safely. The Tribunal’s decision explained why it accepted the evidence of both the family doctor and the occupational therapist, and why the Tribunal put more weight on the opinion of the occupational therapist.

8Further, the appellant submitted that his matter was not heard by a medical professional. I disagree. To begin, section 4(4)(b) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 requires a legally qualified medical practitioner to be a member of the panel that conducts a hearing involving the medical condition or fitness to drive. I find that this requirement was met. I chaired the hearing and wrote the decision, and am a physician licensed to practice medicine in the province of Ontario. The Tribunal panel was therefore properly constituted for the hearing. Further, the role of the adjudicator is not to make a diagnosis but to hear the evidence including diagnoses made by professionals and assign appropriate weight to their professional diagnosis based on the evidence before the Tribunal. In this decision, I did not make any diagnosis of cognitive impairment; instead, I made the decision based on the evidence before me including the opinions of the occupational therapist and the appellant’s medical doctor.

9As for whether cognitive impairment should have been an issue to be decided at the hearing, I do not find any error. The issue of whether the appellant is affected by a cognitive impairment that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely was squarely before the Tribunal because cognitive impairment was why the respondent suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence. It was that suspension, based on that reason, that the appellant consequently appealed to this Tribunal.

10The appellant's argument of bias is based on three points. First, that the Tribunal did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. Second, that the Tribunal was not properly constituted and thirdly that the issue of cognitive impairment was not the proper issue to be before the tribunal. All of these issues have been addressed and I found that the appellant’s argument lacks support.

Rule 18.2(c) - did The Tribunal hear false or misleading evidence from a party or witness, which was discovered only after the hearing and likely affected the result?

11The appellant alleges that the Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence. The appellant alleges the occupational therapist was incompetent, making her evidence false and misleading. Indeed, in his testimony at the hearing and in his request for reconsideration he has pointed out that he has reported the occupational therapist to her professional college.

12The fact that a party disagrees with evidence advanced by an opposing party does not mean that the information was false or misleading. It is open to the Tribunal to weigh evidence as it considers appropriate. In this case, the functional driving exam was performed by both a professional driving instructor and an occupational therapist and the two agreed on their findings on two occasions. These findings included observations of cognitive impairment affecting his driving skills.

13The mere fact that the appellant filed a complaint about the occupational therapist to the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario does not, without more, show the occupational therapist’s incompetence nor does it prove that her evidence was false or misleading. There are no reported findings from the College of Occupational Therapists of Ontario or any other evidence to support the appellant’s allegation of incompetence against the occupational therapist. Similarly, there is also no evidence supporting the appellant’s argument that the evidence from the occupational therapist was false or misleading.

14I therefore find no error based on this ground for reconsideration.

D. CONCLUSION:

15Reconsideration is only warranted in specific and limited cases as stated in Rule 18.2.

16None of the grounds for reconsideration in Rule 18.2 (a) and Rule 18.2 (c) has been met in the present case and, accordingly, the Tribunal’s decision does not warrant reconsideration.

17Although the appellant’s reconsideration request has failed, the appellant is reminded that he is not permanently precluded from having his licence reinstated. If the appellant submits a new functional driving assessment or otherwise submits new medical evidence to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles that supports the conclusion that he does not have a condition that would significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely, the appellant’s licence may be reinstated based on that new information.

E. ORDER:

18Upon considering the submissions of the parties, and for the reasons noted above, the Tribunal denies the appellant’s request for reconsideration.