Licence Appeal Tribunal
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:
Kyle O’Brien Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member Rupinder Hans, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Kyle O’Brien, Self-Represented For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
Held by teleconference: February 9, 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. OVERVIEW
1Kyle O’Brien (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar” or “respondent”) to suspend his Class G driver’s licence for medical reasons, specifically a mental health condition, under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”).
2The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his licence.
3Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
B. ISSUE
4The 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.
5To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:
a. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely a mental health condition?
b. If the appellant does suffer from a mental health condition, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
C. THE LAW
6The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence. One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s.47(1)(g) of the Act is if the driver suffers from a medical condition or addiction likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely.
7Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 enacted under the Act requires 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 his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.”
8Section 203(1) of the HTA requires medical professionals to report prescribed medical conditions to the Registrar, while s. 203(2) gives medical professionals the discretion to report medical conditions that they believe might make it dangerous for a person to drive.
9Section 14(2)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (“CCMTA Standards”) when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The CCMTA Standards are not binding on the Registrar or on this Tribunal.
10The Registrar has the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that one or more grounds for suspending a driver’s licence has been made out.
11Pursuant 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.
D. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS
a. Does the appellant suffer from a mental health condition?
12The evidence satisfies us that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.
13The Registrar alleges the appellant has a mental health condition and in support of its allegation, relies on a Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated March 4, 2021, completed by psychiatrist, Lori-Anne Williams. The MCR states that the appellant suffers from a psychiatric illness due to unspecified psychosis. The MCR notes this is “a condition or disorder currently involving any of the following: acute psychosis, severe abnormalities of perception, or patient has a suicidal plan involving a vehicle or an intent to use a vehicle to harm others.”
14The appellant denies he has a mental health condition and disputes Dr. Williams’ medical opinion. He testified that he has never had a mental health issue, has never taken any medication for his mental health, and that there is no history of any mental health issues in his family.
15The appellant testified that in March 2021 he was forced into a hospital for involuntary care under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7, as amended when a Form 2 was executed against him. He testified he was forced to meet with Dr. Williams against his wishes. He testified that, the year prior to his involuntary admission, he had lost his pregnant fiancé and there had been fraud at his business which was distressing. Thus, he sought assistance from a counsellor who called the police leading to his involuntary care.
16The appellant testified that on March 3, 2021 he appeared before the Consent and Capacity Board (the “Board”) to contest Dr. Williams’ opinion. He advises the Board rescinded a certificate of involuntary status and determined that the requirements set out in the Mental Health Act were not met. He self-discharged himself from Dr. Williams’ care on March 4, 2021.
17The Tribunal notes the legal test that is applied before the Board under the Mental Health Act is different from Act. While the Board’s decision to release the appellant from involuntary care is informative and provides some context, the Board does not typically make finding that a person does not suffer from a mental health condition, or that they might be safe to drive, and so their decision to set aside the appellant’s involuntary admission is not determinative of the issues in the appeal.
18The medical evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from a mental health condition. The medical evidence consists solely of the MCR completed by Dr. Williams. The Registrar asked the appellant to have his treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner complete a Mental Health Disorder form and return it to the attention of the Driver Medical Review office. The appellant testified that he did not do so because the form implies he has a medical condition, which he says he does not. He testified that he did not want to give credence to any allegation that he has a medical condition.
19Not only did the appellant fail to submit a completed Mental Heath Disorder form, he also did not provide any medical evidence from his treatment providers or other medical health professionals. He testified that he reached out to his family doctor to obtain a letter of support but they failed to connect.
20Although we found the appellant’s testimony forthright, the only medical documentation directly related to the diagnosis of a mental health condition in evidence is the MCR form completed by Dr. Williams. Dr. Williams was in the best position to assess the appellant’s medical condition while he was under her care and there was no medical evidence presented at the hearing which causes the Tribunal to doubt her assessment.
21Given the evidence before us, we find on a balance of probabilities that the Registrar has established the appellant suffers from a mental health condition.
b. Is the appellant’s mental health condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?
22The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s mental health condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. We find that the Registrar has satisfied this burden.
23The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, chapter 14 which describes mental health conditions in general and the concerns with driving safety with respect to those conditions. The Registrar relies on chapter 14.6.1 which states:
All drivers 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 the conditions for maintaining a licence are met.
24The Tribunal is entitled to take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them. The overriding consideration in this appeal is whether 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.
25While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and provide assistance, every case must be considered on its own facts.
26The Registrar points out that there is no medical evidence regarding a period of stability after Dr. Williams completed the MCR on March 4, 2021, and the appellant’s release from hospitalization due to his mental health condition. It has been about two years since his release from hospitalization, and yet the appellant has not provided any medical records for that time period.
27The appellant has not presented evidence which satisfies the Tribunal that his condition has become stable and controlled since he was assessed by Dr. Williams, or that his insight and functional ability to drive have improved since the MCR was submitted.
28The appellant testified that he is fine to drive and there is no evidence to prove he has a condition that would prevent him from driving in a safe manner. He testified that he requires his licence to attend to his day-to-day tasks. He testified that his hospitalization for his mental health condition would appear to be a misunderstanding.
29The appellant testified that since his release from hospitalization he has had no ongoing mental health treatment and does not require such.
30We agree with the Registrar that there is no medical documentation offered which refutes the diagnosis of the appellant contained in the MCR. Neither is there any documentation, such as a completed Mental Health Disorder form, which would have addressed the current status of the appellant’s mental health condition and whether he has improved so that he has appropriate insight/sufficient understanding of his medical condition and the impacts on his functional ability to drive.
31Given 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. We find there is no medical evidence to suggest the appellant’s mental health condition is resolved or that he is currently addressing his condition with medical treatment of any kind. He falls short of the criteria set out in the CCMTA Standards.
32We find the Registrar has established that the appellant’s mental health is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely.
33Based on a careful consideration of all the evidence before us, we are satisfied 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.
E. ORDER
34For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class G Licence.
Licence Appeal Tribunal
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member
Rupinder Hans, Member
Released: March 03, 2023