Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15079/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Sutharsan Neethy

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. Isla McPherson Laura Hodgson

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Sutharsan Neethy, Self-Represented,

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

Heard by Videoconference: October 13, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Sutharsan Neethy (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”). The Registrar received a Medical Condition Report indicating that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his ability to drive safely.

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason. Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Act (the “Regulation”) states 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 their ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister of Transportation may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend his licence under the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. He denies suffering from a mental health condition which interferes with his ability to drive safely.

5Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, the Tribunal may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

ISSUES

6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

7To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

ii. If yes, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

8The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

9Having considered the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.

11The Registrar’s position that the appellant has a mental health condition is supported by the Medical Condition Report completed by the psychiatrist Dr. Gunaratnam of the Scarborough Hospital Network on May 5, 2022. This report states that the appellant suffers from a psychiatric illness due to unspecified psychosis. We recognize that there is minimal medical information contained in this standardized Ministry of Transportation form.

12The Registrar requested additional information from the appellant. In its letter to the appellant dated May 5, 2022, the Registrar notified the appellant that, for licence reinstatement to be considered, he must return a Mental Health Disorder Form completed by a treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner. The appellant has not yet returned this form.

13The appellant testified that, in his view, he hasn’t received the proper testing for a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis. He accepts that he has a learning disability and experienced childhood trauma. The appellant told the Tribunal that he believes that he was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1994. The appellant indicated that, more recently, he was again diagnosed as having schizophrenia by doctors in Quebec and in Ottawa. He testified that he was admitted to the psychiatry ward at the Scarborough Hospital from April 25 to May 5, 2022. There he was again diagnosed with and treated for schizophrenia. The appellant advised the Tribunal that he is unsure why he received this diagnosis as he attended the Scarborough hospital with headaches and to discuss his childhood trauma. After he was discharged from hospital, the appellant later attended an Emergency Department and received a referral to a psychiatrist whom he has been unable to see.

14The appellant testified that his family doctor refuses to complete the Mental Health Disorder Form requested by the Ministry because she believes he has previously refused to take his prescribed medication. The appellant disagrees with this, testifying that he took Abilify (an antipsychotic medication) as required when hospitalized in May 2022. He believes that his hospital discharge plan only required him to speak to a trauma counsellor.

15The medical evidence currently before the Tribunal establishes that the appellant has a mental health condition. In his own testimony, the appellant also acknowledges that he has, on multiple occasions, been diagnosed as having schizophrenia and has previously taken antipsychotic medication. While the appellant disagrees with this diagnosis, he has not provided the requested medical information or any evidence to dispute it.

16Based on the information available, we find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant has a mental health condition.

Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

17We find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s mental health condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

18The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”). Chapter 14 describes mental health conditions in general and the concerns with driving safely with respect to those conditions. Specifically, chapter 14.6.1 states that all drivers 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.

19Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the CCMTA Standards when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but are not bound by them.

20The Registrar suggests that there is no medical evidence that the appellant’s mental health condition is stable or that he is addressing it with medical treatment of any kind. There is no indication that the appellant has sufficient insight to stop driving if his condition becomes acute.

21The appellant argues that he does not have a mental health condition that impacts his ability to drive safely. He testified that he does not suffer from hallucinations and does not drive recklessly.

22Given the absence of any medical documentation other than the MCR and having found that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition, we are persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards. While the appellant believes that he does not suffer from a mental health condition that impacts his ability to drive he testified that he has been repeatedly diagnosed with schizophrenia. It appears that the appellant has not followed up with a psychiatrist as recommended and that his family physician is concerned that he has refused medication. At this time, there is no medical evidence suggesting that the appellant’s condition is stable, that he has sufficient insight to stop driving or that a treating physician supports his return to driving.

23We find the Registrar has established that the appellant’s mental health is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

24The Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

25For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.