Musharraf Iqbal v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 107288

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14944/MED

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:

Musharraf Iqbal

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Peter Savage, Member Rebecca Hines, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Musharraf Iqbal, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Agent for the Registrar

Heard by Teleconference:

October 17, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Musharraf Iqbal (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend their Class A licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received an unsolicited report from a treating healthcare provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their safety to drive.

2The Registrar (the “respondent”) 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 (“MTO”) may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

3The respondent takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a cognitive disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend their licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. They acknowledge that they suffer from a cognitive disorder, however, deny that this medical condition will interfere with their ability to drive safely.

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

ISSUES:

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

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

1. Is the appellant living with a cognitive disorder?

2. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

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

RESULT

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

ANALYSIS

Is the appellant living with a cognitive disorder?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant lives with a cognitive disorder.

11The respondent’s position is supported by an unsolicited Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) completed by Dr. Singh, internist. On June 3, 2023, Dr. Singh submitted the MCR to the MTO supporting that the appellant has a cognitive impairment, specifically dementia, that affects his attention, judgment and problem solving, planning and sequencing, memory, insight, reaction time or visuospatial perception. This condition would consequently affect his ability to drive safely.

12In response to the report, the MTO sent the appellant a letter dated June 7, 2023, confirming that his licence had been suspended due to a cognitive disorder. The letter advised the appellant to take the letter to his physician, specialist, or nurse practitioner when the condition improves and have them complete a cognitive disorder form and submit it to the Driver Medical Review Office.

13The appellant did not respond to the MTO’s correspondence nor have his physician complete and return a completed cognitive disorder form. However, the appellant acknowledged during cross-examination that he had been diagnosed with dementia a few months prior to the suspension of his licence.

14We find that the MCR relied upon by the respondent and the appellant’s testimony supports that he has been diagnosed with dementia. Consequently, we find that the appellant is a person living with a cognitive disorder.

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

15We find that the respondent has proven 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.

16The respondent directed us to Chapter 6 of the National Safety Code Standard 6: “Determining Driver Fitness in Canada” of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (“CCMTA Standard”) in support of its submission that the appellant’s current condition does not meet the test for reinstatement of his licence. Chapter 6.6.1 addresses the standard which must be met for drivers with cognitive disorders. We note that the CCMTA Standard states that all drivers are eligible for a licence if, following the appropriate assessment, the assessment supports that:

o Cognitive functions necessary for driving are not impaired.

o Where required, a functional driving assessment shows condition does not affect ability to drive.

o Conditions for maintaining a licence are met.

17The appellant argues that his cognitive disorder or diagnosis of dementia does not impact his ability to drive safely. He submits that his family doctor told him it was okay for him to drive using caution. Of significance, the appellant did not submit any medical evidence to support his assertions, nor did he call any witnesses to speak to his ability to drive safely with his cognitive disorder.

18We also find the appellant’s testimony about the events leading up to the suspension of his licence and what transpired afterwards to be vague and inconsistent. For example, in his notice of appeal he stated that he was admitted to the hospital on June 16, 2023, for depression and that the doctor advised him not to drive as a precaution. This was inconsistent with the date outlined in Dr. Singh’s MCR and MTO’s suspension letter which happened in the weeks prior to this hospital admission. In addition, he first testified that he did not receive MTO’s correspondence attaching the cognitive disorder form but then stated that he took it to his family doctor and was not sure why she did not complete the form. Overall, we find the appellant demonstrated confusion when trying to remember dates and time frames and that he lacked insight into the medical reason why his licence was suspended.

19Although we are not bound by the CCMTA Standards, they may be applied by this Tribunal. The CCMTA Standards speak to the importance of information from health care providers in determining whether a person with a cognitive impairment can drive safely such as a functional driving examination, cognitive screens, and road tests to assess whether an individual with a cognitive impairment is eligible to hold a licence. The appellant has not taken the required steps to have the cognitive disorder form completed by his family doctor and has not submitted any other medical evidence to support that he can drive safely. In our view, the appellant has not rebutted the respondent’s position that more information is needed before any consideration of reinstatement can be undertaken.

20Based on the evidence before us, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant has a cognitive disorder, namely dementia which is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

21We find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

22For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.