Jillian L. Grealy v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 8676

Appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act

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 licence under subsection 47(1) of the Act

Between:

Jillian L. Grealy Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Panel: Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair

Appearances: For the Appellant: Jillian Grealy, Self-represented For the Respondent: Sanjay Kapur, Agent

Heard by teleconference: January 19, 2022

DECISION AND ORDER

BACKGROUND

1Jillian L. Grealy (the “appellant”) appeals the suspension of her driver’s licence by the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) effective September 25, 2021.

2A physician reported to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) that the appellant had a psychiatric condition. Pursuant to s. 203(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), physicians are required to report to the Registrar any person 16 years of age or older who has or appears to have a prescribed medical condition, functional impairment or visual impairment that may make it dangerous for the person to drive.

3The Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the HTA due to the appellant’s psychiatric condition.

ISSUE

4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant has a medical condition, specifically a psychiatric condition, likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. In order to answer that question, we will address the following issues:

(a) Does the appellant have a psychiatric condition?

(b) Is the appellant’s medical condition, specifically a psychiatric condition, if any, likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely?

RESULT

5For the reasons that follow, we find that the appellant has a medical condition, specifically a psychiatric condition, that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely. Accordingly, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

LAW

6The Registrar has the power under s. 47(1) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence. Paragraph (g) states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e) or (f).”

7One 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 or addiction 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;

8Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister of Transportation 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.

9Under 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.

10The Registrar 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 Registrar.

EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS

(a) Does the appellant have a psychiatric condition?

11As set out below, we find that the appellant has a psychiatric condition.

12The Registrar filed a medical condition report dated September 9, 2021 from psychiatrist Dr. Amanullah diagnosing the appellant with mental or emotional illness “unstable”. The hospital records show that the appellant was brought to the hospital on September 14, 2021. She saw Dr. Banjo and was diagnosed with psychosis and admitted to the hospital. Dr. Banjo noted a background history of bipolar disorder. On September 15, 2021, while in the hospital, Dr. Yardley diagnosed psychosis and paranoia.

13The appellant admitted that she was treated at one hospital a total of four times, at another hospital once and was admitted to Homewood, a mental health facility, once. She said that one of the staff from the hospital drove her to Homewood. The appellant testified that she was treated really badly at the hospital. She believes she was admitted under the name Sarah and that the hospital had her mixed up with another patient. The appellant testified that at one of the hospitals she was forcibly held and given an injection because they thought she was Sarah, another patient, and she did not wake up for two days.

14The appellant testified that she has witnesses who could testify on her behalf but did not bring any of her witnesses to the hearing. She stated that this hearing is a total waste of time. She testified that she has not had time to get the medical forms about her mental health that the Registrar asked for filled out because she does not currently have a family physician, her former family physician will not speak to her and now is apparently off sick, she was out of the country in August and September 2021, she is busy and cannot be bothered dealing with getting another medical health form completed by a physician right now.

15The appellant testified that she last took her prescribed medication in the hospital, is not taking the medication that was prescribed for her, she does not need medication and does not have any mental health condition. She said members of her family are trying to convince others that she has a mental health condition.

16We find based on the medical reports from the physicians at the hospitals and the hospital records, that the appellant has a psychiatric condition.

(b) Is the appellant’s psychiatric condition likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely?

17The appellant testified that she is in good health and feels she can drive really well. She submits that although her husband and daughter told the physician at the hospital that there had been a serious driving incident, no such incident occurred before she was taken to the hospital in September 2021 and she has a clean driving record.

18The Registrar submits that the appellant’s medical condition is severe enough that she should not be permitted to drive. The Registrar’s position is that the appellant presents a safety risk at this time and that a period of stability should be demonstrated before her driving licence is reinstated. The Registrar relies on the guidelines contained in the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers (the “Standards”) with respect to psychiatric disorder (chapter 14). Guideline 14.6.1 states that individuals with psychiatric disorder are eligible for a licence if:

• the condition is stable
• the driver has sufficient insight to stop driving if condition becomes acute
• the functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
• a treating physician supports a return to driving, for drivers who have stopped driving due to a psychiatric disorder, and
• Conditions for maintaining a licence are met

19Based on this standard, the appellant would not be eligible for a licence. Although the Standards are not binding on the Tribunal, we are persuaded in this case that we should follow the Standards because the considerations set out in Guideline 14.6.1 are important to ensure that drivers do not present a safety risk to themselves or others while driving.

20The appellant has a history of mental or emotional illness and instability and was hospitalized less than six months ago for this type of illness. Dr. Amanullah, a hospital psychiatrist, diagnosed the appellant with “mental or emotional illness” and reported that the appellant is “unstable” in a report dated September 9, 2021. This report is consistent with Dr. Banjo’s diagnosis of psychosis and Dr. Yardley’s diagnosis of psychosis and paranoia, both in September 2021. The indication of instability is concerning, especially because the appellant is no longer under the care of a family physician, currently has no physician, is not receiving treatment at any treatment facility and admits that she is no longer taking her medication. Further, the appellant’s medical records and testimony indicate that less than five months before this hearing the appellant was admitted to hospital as a result of her psychological condition and underwent treatment, including receiving medication. As a result, at this time the best medical evidence indicates that appellant’s mental condition is not stable at present, and that no treating physician currently supports a return to driving. There is no report from a physician specializing in mental health or other mental health specialist confirming appellant’s condition is stable. In our view, re-licencing at this time is not appropriate because the appellant presents a safety risk to themselves or others while driving.

21We find based on the totality of the evidence that the appellant’s psychiatric condition is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely at this time because her current psychological condition prevents her from being completely in control of her actions, a necessary skill for driving. We accept the respondent’s submission that a further period of demonstrated stability is reasonable keeping in mind public road safety.

ORDER:

22For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence is confirmed.

Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member

Avril A. Farlam, Vice Chair