Chad Philippe v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 17691

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Date: 2023-03-08

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:

Chad Philippe Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION & ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Peter Savage, M.D., Member Bruce Stanton, Member

APPEARANCES: For the Appellant: Chad Philippe, Appellant For the Respondent: Steve Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by teleconference: February 28, 2023

Overview

1On January 4, 2020, Chad Philippe (the "appellant") attended the emergency department of Peterborough hospital. Thereafter, the attending psychiatrist submitted a Medical Condition Report to the Driver Medical Review Office of the Ontario Ministry of Transportation ("MTO") and the appellant's driver's licence was subsequently suspended owing to a medical condition.

2On January 11, 2023, the appellant submitted a Notice of Appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "Tribunal") to appeal the suspension of his driving privileges.

3We must determine whether the respondent was justified in suspending the appellant's driving privileges. It is the respondent's burden to show they were justified in doing so.

4In reaching a conclusion on that question, we must decide if the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

Issue

5Does the appellant suffer a medical condition, and if so, is it likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

Result

6For the reasons set out below, we find that the appellant does not suffer a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. We, therefore, set aside the respondent's decision to suspend the appellant's licence.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION AND ORDER

Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition?

7We find that the appellant does not suffer from a psychiatric condition.

8A medical condition that could result in having driving privileges suspended is defined in O. Reg. 340/94 (the "Regulation"), the regulations under the Highway Traffic Act. Section 14(1)(a) of the Regulation directs that the 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 safely.

9The respondent relies on the unsolicited Medical Condition Report of Dr. Rajinder Momi, Psychiatrist, dated January 4, 2020, in which he notes the appellant has a psychiatric illness (any of acute psychosis, severe abnormalities of perception, or has a suicidal plan involving a vehicle or an intent to use a vehicle to harm others) due to "poor impulse control and a situational crisis".

10In light of this evidence, the respondent submits the appellant has not provided sufficient medical evidence to reinstate his driver's licence

11At the hearing of this matter, the appellant provided medical evidence concerning his current health status. This included a report related to the appellant's medical examination of May 16, 2022, by a nurse, as endorsed by a nurse practitioner, Joy Joemon. She reports the appellant to be in good health with no psychiatric disorders (psychoneurosis, or psychosis). She reports the appellant's mental competence as "non-impaired" with no instability, psychosis, alcoholism, or neurosis.

12The appellant also testified to the events of January 4, 2020. The appellant stated that the hospital visit of January 4th arose out of a singular emotional crisis that was resolved soon after. His situational emotional crisis was caused by the culmination of worry over his father's cancer and the breakdown of his relationship with his girlfriend. That day, an altercation with his girlfriend, while driving, resulted in her placing a 9-1-1 call to police. He safely moved the vehicle over to the shoulder of the road but soon after suffered a panic attack and was taken to hospital.

13The appellant testified that he struggled to get an assessment of his current psychiatric competence so that he could submit the Medical Condition Report to MTO. He testified that he has been without a family doctor for years and consequently had no medical history to provide a new healthcare provider or clinic with. He indicated he was denied appointments with the hospital and other physicians and clinics, for the purposes of completing the Medical Condition Report. He reported that the nurse's clinic he attended on May 16, 2022 claimed they were unable to complete the MTO Medical Condition Report as the form was not referred to them directly.

14The appellant testified he is not taking any medication, does not abuse alcohol, cannabis or illicit drugs, and is in good health. The incident that caused his licence suspension was an emotional crisis brought on by stress and family breakdown.

15We find the appellant's oral testimony to be credible. He is coherent, demonstrates good recall of facts and events, and presents his story in a straight-forward, thoughtful manner. The only evidence of a psychiatric illness is the Medical Condition Report from Peterborough hospital which confirms the symptoms he presented with were "situational". Put another way, we heard the appellant suffered from a temporary, situational, emotional crisis at the time Dr. Momi assessed him. The Registrar provided no evidence to suggest the appellant has an ongoing psychiatric illness or similar medical condition.

16We conclude that the appellant does not have a medical condition that is likely to significantly affect his ability to drive safely.

17Since we find he does not have a medical condition that would justify the suspension of his driving privileges, it is not necessary to consider his ability to drive safely. The appellant's MTO driving record shows no convictions, discharges or actions prior to his licence suspension.

Conclusion

18We find that the appellant does not suffer from psychiatric illness or a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to operate a motor vehicle safely. Therefore, the respondent's decision is set aside.

Order

19For the reasons given above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence is set aside.