Trevor Yeomans v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 122894

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15324/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:

Trevor Yeomans

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Isla McPherson, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Trevor Yeomans, Appellant

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent

Held by teleconference: December 8, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Trevor Yeomans (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”) after the Registrar received an unsolicited medical condition report from the appellant’s family physician stating that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect his safety to drive.

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 substance 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 denies that he suffers from substance use disorder and denies that he suffers from a medical condition which interferes 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.

ISSUES

6The 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.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder?

ii. If so, 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 all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has 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 confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by:

i. a Medical Condition Report dated August 26, 2021 and accompanying urine toxicology results from Dr. Erb; and

ii. a Substance Use Assessment Form dated May 15, 2022 and accompanying urine toxicology results from Dr. Erb

12The appellant’s family physician, Dr. Erb submitted an unsolicited Medical Condition Report dated August 26, 2021, indicating that the appellant suffers from an uncontrolled substance use disorder due to cocaine and amphetamine use, and is non-compliant with treatment recommendations. The report was accompanied by urine toxicology results dated June 2, 2021, which confirmed the detection of a cocaine metabolite, amphetamines and cannabinoids in the appellant’s urine sample.

13Following the submission of the Medical Condition Report, the Registrar suspended the appellant’s driver’s licence effective September 11, 2021, and requested the completion of a Substance Use Assessment Form.

14The appellant’s family physician Dr. Erb completed the requested Substance Use Assessment Form on May 15, 2022. The form indicates the appellant suffers from severe substance use disorder with illicit substances and/or non-prescribed pharmaceuticals and that the appellant has not abstained from use of these substances, nor has he completed a supervised treatment program. Dr. Erb provides the following narrative comments: “still using cocaine as per attached urine toxicology screen”, “recent hospitalization due to altered level of consciousness”. The form is accompanied by urine toxicology results dated May 6, 2022, confirming the detection of the main metabolite of cocaine and cannabinoids in the appellant’s urine.

15In response to the submission of the Substance Use Assessment Form the Registrar confirmed the suspension of the appellant’s driver’s licence in a letter dated May 24, 2022.

16The appellant denies that he suffers from a substance use disorder.

17The appellant testified that he has used cocaine in the past and continues to use cocaine on special occasions and weekends, however, he does not have a substance use disorder. He testified that the diagnosis of substance use disorder by Dr. Erb was based on speculation and Dr. Erb had misunderstood the frequency with which he uses cocaine.

18The appellant relied on a submitted medical record of a phone conversation between the appellant and Dr. Erb dated June 21, 2021. In the note Dr. Erb has documented that, “he [the appellant] admits to using cocaine with some regularity”. The appellant testified that this is a false statement and what the appellant had actually stated to Dr. Erb was that he “uses cocaine periodically”.

19The appellant testified that he had not been using cocaine leading up to the second urine toxicology result dated May 6, 2021. The appellant states that he has no explanation for why or how he could have tested positive for cocaine at that time.

20The appellant testified that his hospitalization related to the loss of consciousness referenced in Dr. Erb’s narrative statement in the Substance Use Assessment Form was unrelated to drug use. The appellant testified he attempted to gather these hospital records, unfortunately no medical records were available to be provided.

21The appellant testified that he worked full time as a contractor for two decades and is a homeowner, which are not accomplishments that would typically be found of someone suffering from a substance use disorder.

22The appellant testified that he was referred by Dr. Erb to an addictions counseling centre. He initially ignored the calls from the centre as he did not believe their services were required and was busy working. After Dr. Erb submitted the Substance Use Assessment Form, the appellant testified that he followed up with the addictions centre. He testified that when he inquired about whether the centre could assist with him having his licence reinstated and was advised by the centre that they would not be able to provide him with any documentation that would facilitate this, he declined to participate in the addiction programming, as he did not believe that his drug use was a concern.

23The medical evidence before the Tribunal in the form of two medical submissions completed by the appellant’s family physician over the course nine months both clearly document a diagnosis of substance use disorder and are supported by urine toxicology results confirming the presence of cocaine, amphetamines and cannabinoids.

24While the appellant admits to the recreational use of cocaine, he does not agree with a diagnosis of substance use disorder but has not provided any medical evidence to dispute the diagnosis.

25I find the medical evidence in this case relevant and persuasive. I acknowledge that the physician who submitted this medical information is well known to the appellant as his family physician and has also provided laboratory confirmation of using illicit substances. Based on the information available, I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder.

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

26I find that the Registrar 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.

27The Registrar argues that the appellant’s substance use disorder interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely and relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”). Chapter 15 describes substance use disorders in general and the concerns with driving safely with respect to those conditions. Specifically Standard 15.6.3 states that drivers who are under the influence of illicit drugs such as cocaine would be eligible for a licence if they:

i. Meet the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months.

ii. Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

iii. The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired.

iv. Where required a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.

28Section 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.

29The appellant argues that using cocaine does not impact his ability to drive safely.

30The appellant relied on the submitted record of the phone appointment with Dr. Erb dated June 21, 2021. The appellant drew attention to the documentation that notes Dr. Erb has referenced he does not drive while using cocaine. In this document, Dr. Erb has recorded that, “he says he does not drive after using cocaine, which may be a moot point”.

31The appellant testifies that he has insight into his use of cocaine and its effects, and he does not operate a vehicle while under the influence of drugs. He references “The National Safety Code Standard 6: Determining Driver Fitness in Canada”. In this document, the appellant drew attention to the importance of insight in being an important factor in determining when a temporary condition may influence the ability to drive safely and the importance of making a decision based on an individual risk not just a diagnosis.

32The appellant relied on an untitled document from physician, Dr. MacMillian, who attended to the appellant on a temporary basis while the appellant was detained in a correctional facility. The note describes in general terms that it is “not his [Dr. MacMillian’s] practice to report to MTO” patients with “recreational use of mind altering substances (alcohol, weed, cocaine) unless I suspect that the usage in any way could impair driving safety”. The documentation provided does not specifically make recommendations regarding the appellant.

33In a letter submitted by the appellant’s friend, Melissa Barry, she details that she has never seen the appellant drive while impaired and she has “driven him on multiple times in the past before the suspension due to him being impaired and not wanting to risk the consequences of driving”.

34The appellant testified that the loss of his driver’s licence has resulted in numerous hardships. As a result, he had to resort on one occasion to driving his vehicle while his licence was under suspension to attend to a job site, and subsequently he was in a car accident necessitating the involvement of the law.

35The appellant’s position that his recreational cocaine use will not impact his ability to drive safely is considered. However, this must be weighed against the medical science that side effects of central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine and amphetamines are unpredictable and can impair the ability to drive safely, and that the appellant has not provided a medical opinion that suggests or confirms that his condition will not interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

36The appellant’s assertion that he maintains insight into his drug use, so he does not drive while impaired is considered. However, the appellant’s decision to drive his vehicle while his licence was under suspension brings into question the insight required to safely operate a motor vehicle. The appellant’s insight into his illicit substance use is also brought into question as he has not followed through with the recommendations of his physician to attend the addictions counseling program he was referred to.

37Although not bound by the CCMTA Standards, they are considered when making the decision for the reason that these Standards are the result of a lengthy and intensive process to provide medical standards based on the best evidence available and with a focus on functional ability to drive rather than exclusively on medical diagnoses. My review of the evidence shows that none of the conditions recommended for relicensing outlined in the CCMTA Standards have been met.

38I acknowledge the burden that the lack of a driver’s licence is having on the appellant. However, the ongoing use of an illicit substance including cocaine is concerning, along with the lack of any submitted medical evidence to support the safety of driving under this circumstance.

39As such, for the reasons cited, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

40I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder, and that condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

41For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.