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:
Brian T. Rose
Appellant
-and-
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATOR:
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant:
Brian T. Rose (self-represented)
For the Respondent:
Kyle Biel, Agent
Heard by teleconference:
December 8, 2021
Background
1By letter dated August 26, 2021, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "respondent") requested information from Brian T. Rose (the "appellant") after receiving an unsolicited report indicating that he suffers from conditions that affect his ability to drive safely. These conditions include seizure, mental health condition, alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder. The appellant was advised that his licence would be placed under suspension and he would receive an official notice in the mail.
2The abovementioned medical report was prepared by Dr. P. Nagrani from Norfolk General Hospital and dated August 20, 2021. It indicates that the appellant suffered a seizure of an unknown cause. It also notes a history of drug and alcohol involvement along with schizophrenia or other psychotic disorder.
3The respondent requires further medical information prior to considering reinstatement of the appellant's driver's licence. This includes a statement from the appellant's healthcare practitioner that he has remained abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year. According to the respondent, this period may be reduced to six months if the appellant's healthcare practitioner confirms that he has successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of the appellant's driving privilege.
4In addition to this, the appellant was also requested to provide confirmation from his healthcare practitioner that he has remained abstinent from drugs for a period of one year. Again, the respondent indicated that this period may be reduced to six months if the appellant's healthcare practitioner confirms that he has successfully completed a drug treatment program and is supportive of the appellant's driving privilege.
5The respondent also required that the appellant have his healthcare practitioner complete several forms including a mental health disorder form, a substance use assessment form, and a seizures and loss of consciousness form.
6The appellant failed to provide any of the information noted in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5. Instead, he submitted a Resuscitation Plan of Care dated May 9, 2021 and a Laboratory Services Report dated October 13, 2021. Neither of these documents satisfied the respondent's request and his licence remained under suspension.
7By letter dated October 28, 2021, the respondent once again requested additional information from the appellant in order to consider reinstating his driver's licence. This time, alcohol use disorder was no longer identified as a condition he suffers from. However, the other conditions remain outstanding and the forms the respondent requested have yet to be completed by the appellant's healthcare practitioner.
8The appellant subsequently provided an EEG report dated October 21, 2021. The respondent acknowledged receipt in a letter dated November 30, 2021. However, the appellant was advised once again that the information was insufficient for reinstatement of his driver's licence. The respondent again requested forms for substance use disorder and mental health condition be completed by the appellant's healthcare practitioner.
9The appellant believes that his driver's licence should be reinstated. He disputes the fact that he had a seizure and relates all of his medical issues to a heart attack he suffered. He states that he is being treated for his mental health condition but believes that it does not impact his ability to drive. He finds the respondent's decision to suspend his licence unfair as he states many people with his medical conditions are still allowed to drive.
10It is the respondent's position that the appellant has failed to provide the requested medical information on multiple occasions. It believes that these medical conditions, either separately or combined, will continue to prevent the appellant's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle.
Issue
11The issue to be determined is whether the appellant's medical conditions, if any, are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
Result
12For the reasons set out below, we confirm the respondent's decision.
Law
13The 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)."
14One 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;
15Section 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.
16Under 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.
17The 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
18The parties presented their oral evidence and testimony at the hearing. Both parties were given the opportunity to make submissions and respond to oral evidence. The appellant relied on a Laboratory Services Report from Norfolk General Hospital and a Resuscitation Plan of Care to demonstrate to the respondent that he is capable to safely drive a motorized vehicle. We note that the lab report pertains to a urine drug screen. It did not detect the presence of any controlled or illegal substances. This was a one-time test result. The resuscitation plan of care simply confirms that CPR be administered in the event of cardiac arrest. We find these reports fall well short of meeting the respondent's request and does not give the information needed to make a determination on the appellant's ability to drive safely.
19We also find that the appellant should have known exactly what was being asked of him. He received several letters from the respondent clearly outlining what he needs to provide for consideration of his licence to be reinstated. The appellant, for reasons only he knows, chose to not provide that information.
20At the hearing, we also learned that approximately 2 weeks after his initial hospital visit, the appellant was picked up by police and brought back to the hospital for a mental health examination. This confirms that the appellant's mental health condition was unstable and remains unresolved to date since no evidence was presented to suggest otherwise. The appellant is now under the care of a psychiatrist, Dr. Garside, who will be able to assess the appellant and possibly complete the forms the respondent is looking for in the future.
21We heard that the appellant is currently receiving Abilify though a Community Treatment Order which is typically issued to ensure compliance. Abilify is an injection, anti-psychotic treatment which he receives under supervision.
22We also note that based on the evidence and available medical reports, there are no objective medical records to substantiate the appellant's claim of a heart attack. His medical conditions of most concern, as it relates to his ability to drive, are primarily his mental health and substance use deficits. We are not willing to jeopardize the safety of the public without clear evidence that the appellant has received adequate treatment and he is supported by his healthcare practitioner, that he is able to drive safely.
23The appellant failed to provide the necessary medical documentation leaving us to conclude that his medical conditions are currently of concern and he has not completed a suitable rehabilitation program and does not have a medical opinion from his doctor that supports his ability to drive safely.
24We find that the actions taken by the respondent to suspend the appellant's driver's licence in the interest of public safety are warranted and appropriate in this case.
25The appellant has failed to convince us that his licence should be reinstated at this time.
26Based on 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 Registrar's decision is confirmed.
WE ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
27For 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