Rita Cyr v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2022 CanLII 98050

Date: 2022-10-07

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:

Rita Cyr

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

Adjudicators: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

Appearances

For the Appellant: Rita Cyr, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Kyle Beal, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: October 3, 2022

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview

1By letter dated June 14, 2022, 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”), for medical reasons. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate her licence.

2The appellant’s daughter, Sylvia LaBelle, was present as a support person and technical advisor for the appellant

3Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

B. Issue

4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

5To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

1. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely a cognitive impairment?
2. If the appellant does suffer from a cognitive impairment, is this likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

C. The Law

6The 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).”

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.

8Subsection 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 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.”

9Section 203(1) of the HTA 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.

10Section 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.

11The 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.

12Pursuant 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 a cognitive disorder?

13In support of its allegation that the appellant suffers from cognitive impairment, the Registrar relies on the Medical Condition Report (“MCR form”) from the consulting geriatrician, Dr. Genevieve Lemay (“Dr. Lemay”) dated June 8, 2022, Simone Duvettee, an Occupational Therapist (“OT”), who examined the appellant during her June 2022 hospitalization, and the functional driving assessment examination report from France Allard, an OT in Cornwall, Ontario.

14In the MCR form of June 8, 2022, Dr. Lemay advised that the appellant suffers from cognitive deficit. She is unsure whether this is due to delirium caused by her recent bout of COVID-19 and ICU admission or part of the appellant’s aging process. She states that the appellant is unsafe to drive at this time and recommends a reassessment in six months to reassess her cognitive ability.

15Further evidence indicates that the appellant’s cognitive impairment persists:

• In the consultation note from the OT, Ms. Duvettee, cognitive deficit is again diagnosed, and more time is recommended to see if improvement occurs post-hospitalization. Ms. Allard suggests a functional driving test sometime in the future.
• In a Functional Driving Assessment on August 26, 2022, Ms. Allard retested the appellant and confirmed the diagnosis of a cognitive deficit.

16The appellant testified that she is functioning well and does not feel she has a cognitive deficit. She did not provide any medical evidence to support her position.

17I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely cognitive impairment.

b. Is the appellant’s medical condition of cognitive impairment likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle safely?

18The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. I find that the Registrar has satisfied this burden.

19The Registrar relies on Chapter 6 of the CCMTA National Safety Code, which describes cognitive impairment and dementia and the concerns with driving with respect to that condition. The Registrar relies on chapter 6.6.1 which recommends, if required, functional driving assessments to show the condition does not affect ability to drive.

20The Registrar submits that, as per the CCMTA standards, even mild-moderate cognitive deficiencies can result in catastrophic results for some drivers.

21In a letter from the Registrar, dated August 9, 2022, the appellant was advised that the Registrar requires a satisfactory functional driving assessment from an approved Functional Assessment Centre.

22The appellant was assessed by Ms. Allard at Your OT Services in Cornwall, Ontario. On August 26, 2022, Ms. Allard issued a Functional Driving Assessment (the “Assessment”) form indicating the appellant suffered from cognitive deficit and further stating the appellant demonstrated deficits in functional driving skills and driving was not recommended.

23Ms. Allard noted 7 critical errors in driving and stated the test had to be stopped prior to completion due to safety concerns. Ms. Allard’s report states that the appellant was not aware of her cognitive deficits and the impact they had on her driving.

24As stated earlier, the appellant testified that in her opinion she does not feel she has a cognitive deficit, and she feels she is a safe driver. She points out

• Her driving record of approximately 70 years is perfect
• The driving test was unfair as it was in a town she was not familiar with and she was not familiar with the car she was asked to drive.
• The driving instructor and the OT talked constantly in the car and she found it very distracting. The appellant noted that she was much more familiar with her hometown of Orleans and her Orleans had far fewer one-way streets.
• It was raining the day the driving test was taken and that made the test much more difficult

25The appellant testified that she only had one accident in 70 years of driving and she notes that accident was not her fault.

26The appellant also points out she lives alone and manages to run the household and do the cooking and cleaning by herself. She maintains she couldn’t do that if she had a cognitive deficit.

27I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition of cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to safely drive a motor vehicle. The Functional Driving Assessment showed serious safety concerns with the appellant’s driving abilities. I agree with the Registrar that the CCMTA Standard, chapter 6.6.1 is reasonable and relevant to the appellant, and I apply it here. I find that reinstating the appellant’s Class G licence would present a significant risk to the safety of the appellant, her potential passengers, and others using the roadways. I note that the geriatrician recommended reassessment after six months had passed, and the Registrar has stated that a further functional driving assessment is possible if evidence of improvement of her cognitive function is received. This possibility was explained to the appellant and her daughter.

E. Order

28For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class G driver’s licence.