Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15295/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:

Gurpreet Gidda

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Peter Savage

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Gurpreet Gidda, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD:

November 14, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Gurpreet Gidda (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) to suspend his Class G driver’s licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received a report from a treating health care provider 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 medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend his licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. He acknowledges that he suffers from alcohol use disorder but denies that he suffers from a medical condition which is likely to significantly interfere with his 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 Registrar.

6The Registrar originally noted the condition resulting in licence suspension was seizure but clarified at the hearing that alcohol use disorder was the condition.

ISSUES

7The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

8To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from alcohol use disorder?

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

9The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”

RESULT

10Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has not satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition of alcohol use disorder?

11The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder.

12The Registrar’s position is supported by an unsolicited medical report submitted by Dr. Jose of July 17, 2023, and a seizure and loss of consciousness form of September 19, 2023 submitted by Dr. Jose. Both reports submitted by Dr. Jose make the diagnosis of substance use disorder and identify alcohol as the substance. In her September 19, 2023 report, Dr. Jose goes on to label the condition as severe substance abuse.

13The appellant acknowledges that he suffered from alcohol use disorder at the time of suspension.

14I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from the medical condition of alcohol use disorder.

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

15I find that the Registrar has not 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 Registrar argues that alcohol use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that the resumption of drinking may pose dangers to road safety. The Registrar submits that a further period of abstinence is needed to be certain the appellant will not return to alcohol use. The Registrar further submits that the Ministry of Transportation has reviewed the period of abstinence that is required before relicensing can be considered and has decided that 6 months is the minimum time.

17The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”), section 15.6.3.

18Section 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.

19The CCMTA Standards recommend that a driver who has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder be considered eligible for a licence if they have abstained from alcohol for 12 months and that earlier relicensing may be considered upon a favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist or treating physician and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

20The appellant argues that his alcohol use disorder does not impact his ability to drive safely.

21The appellant testified that while he was using alcohol inappropriately in July 2023, it was related to stress. A recent trip to England had resulted in conflict with his mother and as a result he was drinking excessively. He stated he realized this himself and stopped drinking. The alcohol withdrawal seizure that followed the abrupt discontinuation of alcohol triggered his loss of licence.

22The appellant submits that he recognized the harm alcohol was doing to his life and had decided to stop drinking prior to his loss of licence. Events following his loss of licence have strengthened his resolve to remain alcohol free.

23The appellant testified the alcohol treatment program he completed has given him insight into the reason he was drinking excessively and also given him tools to prevent a recurrence.

24The appellant has followed up by attending an alcohol support group which meets on weekly basis.

25The appellant stated that he has a supportive family doctor who is following his progress with visits and blood work.

26The appellant’s wife testified that the appellant has been alcohol free since July 2023 and while he has gone to numerous social gatherings where alcohol was served, he has not taken any alcohol. Both the appellant and his wife testified the home is alcohol free. The appellant’s wife testified he has never driven drunk, and that even if he had only one drink, he would call a cab or have her drive.

27The appellant relies on his good driving record and the absence of any alcohol related issues.

28The appellant accepts that the suspension of his licence was appropriate in July of 2023. He argues, however, that he has complied with all the requirements to end his suspension. He has stopped drinking, taken an alcohol treatment program and is ready for relicensing. He argues that, having reviewed the law, there is no provision for a 6-month suspension. He accepts the CCMTA criteria but notes they just say earlier relicensing is possible without specifying a time. He argues every case should be judged individually and, in his case, he has made significant changes and is ready for relicensing.

29I find that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is not likely to significantly affect his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find the CCMTA Standards are helpful and, having considered the evidence before me, I find the appellant has met the standards for earlier relicensing. I agree with the appellant that every case has to be considered on its own merits. In this case, the appellant has excellent insight into the issues that led to the suspension. This insight is a key factor noted by the CCMTA when considering relicensing of suspended drivers. The appellant has good support from his family doctor, wife and his alcohol support group. I understand the Registrar is looking for proof of a few more weeks of abstinence but I am persuaded based on the evidence and submissions of the parties, early relicensing is warranted.

30I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

ORDER

31For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.