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:
Cecilia Changoo
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION & ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Denise Rumsey (Appellant’s daughter)
For the Respondent:
Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
December 1, 2021
Background
1By letter dated September 21, 2018, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) requested information from Cecilia Changoo (the “appellant”) after receiving an unsolicited report indicating that the appellant had suffered a stroke. At this point, her driver’s licence was still valid and she was asked to provide a medical assessment and associated forms from her treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner. Once received, the information would be considered by the respondent’s Medical Review Section.
2The appellant submitted some information to the respondent who replied in a letter dated November 13, 2018, that a satisfactory driving evaluation from a rehabilitation centre was necessary to determine whether she can safely operate a vehicle. The deadline to produce this information was extended to January 31, 2019, after which time her licence would be suspended.
3In a further letter dated January 30, 2019, the respondent suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence for the medical condition reported above. The medical reports she provided to date were not sufficient to re-instate her licence. The respondent requested that the appellant provide information from her treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner that her condition has significantly improved. Once received, the respondent would consider re-instatement and/or the need to complete a functional assessment.
4The appellant provided a Cerebrovascular Diseases Traumatic Brain Injury/Tumour or Other Neurological Diseases form, completed by her healthcare practitioner, to the respondent who once again requested a satisfactory driving evaluation from a rehabilitation centre.
5On June 12, 2019, the appellant was granted a temporary driver’s licence for the purpose of completing a driving evaluation with an occupational therapist. The assessment was completed on June 27, 2019. The appellant failed. The report concluded that there were deficits in the appellant’s functional driving skills and reinstatement of licence was not recommended.
6A copy of the report was shared with the respondent. The respondent confirmed the continued suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence until such time as she can provide confirmation from her physician or specialist that there has been significant improvement in her cognitive functions and successfully completed a further functional driving assessment.
7The appellant believes that her licence should be reinstated. She acknowledges having a mild stroke in September 2018 but states that she resumed to normal activities a few weeks later. The appellant submits that her medical condition has greatly improved, and she has not had any additional seizures.
8It is the respondent’s position that the request for a driving assessment and additional medical information is necessary to determine whether the appellant can safely operate a motor vehicle. This is further supported by Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) National Safety Code Standard 6: Determining Driver Fitness in Canada. Under the circumstance, the respondent believes that the request for an additional assessment is prudent and applicable.
Issue
9The issue to be determined is whether the appellant’s medical condition, if any, is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
Result
10For the reasons set out below, we confirm the respondent’s decision.
Law
11The 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).”
12One 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 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:
(1) 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;
13Section 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.
14Under 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.
15The 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
16The respondent asserts that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may make her a danger to other road users. The respondent submits that in order to address those safety concerns, the appellant must complete a functional driving assessment and provide information from her healthcare practitioner that her cognitive functions have improved significantly.
17The respondent cited previous medical reports which confirm that the appellant suffered a stroke in 2018 and has demonstrated functional deficits in her ability to drive.
18At the hearing, the respondent presented evidence that shows the results of the functional driving assessment. This included an assessment of the appellant’s awareness while driving, ensuring that she drives within her lane and that she executes maneuvers with confidence and certainty. The assessment also determined the appellant’s processing speed, visual perception and decision making.
19The appellant testified that she found the assessment very stressful and her poor performance was the result of anxiety. She further states that requiring her to do an assessment causes her undue hardship. The appellant stated that she was still going through therapy at the time of her driving evaluation in June 2019. She suggested she may have been evaluated unfairly at the facility she went to. When questioned if she would consider going to another facility to take the test, she replied no. She feels that would not help her anxiety.
20The respondent acknowledges that recent reports indicate that the appellant has had no seizures and has improved significantly. The appellant relied on this evidence and further stated that her family doctor has no concerns. She presented letters of support from individuals who knew her before her stroke. All attest to her being well, including people she works with (nurse practitioners, occupational therapists and her manager).
21The appellant argues that she works 12 hour shifts at Sunnybrook Hospital which is very demanding and requires a heightened cognitive ability. She bases her argument on the fact that if she is able to function in such an environment, she should be able to utilize the same cognitive ability to drive a car. We reject this comparison and view the two tasks as different.
22The appellant is currently not taking any medication. Aside from the stroke she suffered, she enjoys relatively good health. However, we have substantial concerns regarding the fact that she still has not been able to complete a functional driving assessment which concludes that her licence should be reinstated. We considered a prior 2019 decision in 11921/MED (K.P. v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles) that “performance-based, comprehensive on road driving evaluation remains the most accurate method of determining driving fitness status.”
23To date, the appellant has not demonstrated this fitness to drive and this can only be confirmed through a driving assessment. We find that the respondent’s request for a functional driving assessment to be reasonable and required in this situation. The appellant failed to convince us that a driving evaluation was not warranted.
24Based 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Therefore, the respondent’s decision is confirmed.
WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
25For 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: February 9, 2022