Dawna Armoogam v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 17694

Dawna Armoogam v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Date: 2023-03-01

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 driver’s license under subsection 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Dawna Armoogam Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant: Dawna Armoogam, Self-represented For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: February 21, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview

1On October 28, 2022, the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar”) suspended the appellant’s Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “HTA”), for medical reasons. The appellant appeals the suspension.

2The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder which requires that her licence be suspended. The appellant disagrees with the Registrar’s decision and has appealed that decision to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”).

3Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, I 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 (alcohol use disorder) that is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

5To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:

1. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely alcohol use disorder?
2. If so, is the appellant’s alcohol use disorder likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

C. The Law

6The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the HTA to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence on the ground that 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 under the HTA 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 (“CCMTA”) Medical Standards for Drivers 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 HTA, 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 alcohol use disorder?

12The appellant was diagnosed with alcohol use disorder by her treating psychiatrist in his substance abuse questionnaires March 12 and October 28, 2022 and by emergency physicians who reported her to the Registrar August 13, 2002.

13The appellant’s alcohol use was reported to the Registrar by the Ontario Provincial Police who issued her an Administrative Driver’s Licence Suspension (“ADLS”) on September 2, 2022. At that time the appellant was driving her vehicle in a campground and her breathalyser reading was .09 which is above the legal limit. The Registrar argues that the appellant’s ADLS of September 2, 2022 is evidence of an ongoing pattern of alcohol abuse. In particular, the Registrar refers to the appellant’s own testimony that she continues to drink alcohol on a regular basis, including that she drank alcohol the night prior to this hearing, went to hospital as she was in distress and had expressed suicidal thoughts and carried out cutting behaviour on herself.

14The appellant disagrees with the diagnosis. In her opinion she has a drinking problem and uses alcohol as a medication to help forget her stress and anxiety. She testifies that she drinks only two or three times a week and in her opinion should not be diagnosed as an alcohol use disorder

15The appellant’s opinion is not supported in the medical reports and I am satisfied that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder.

b. Is the appellant’s medical condition of alcohol use disorder likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a vehicle safely?

Registrar’s Evidence

16The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

17The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, chapter 15, which describes alcohol use disorder and the dangers this condition causes in drivers. The Registrar relies on chapter 15.6.3 which recommends a period of abstinence of 12 months before a person who has been diagnosed as suffering from alcohol use disorder may be eligible for licence reinstatement. This may be reduced to 6 months if a recognized treatment program has been undertaken

18The Registrar submits that, as set out in the CCMTA Standards, chapter 15, even mild-moderate alcohol use disorder can lead to a catastrophic result in some drivers and notes that the appellant’s psychiatrist has diagnosed severe alcohol use disorder

19The Registrar admits that an ignition lock on the appellant’s vehicle would satisfy the terms of the ADLS suspension but feels that it does not deal with all the complex medical and mental health issues associated with the appellant’s alcohol use disorder.

20The Registrar maintains that an alcohol abuse program as well as a period of abstinence is needed before consideration of relicensing can be undertaken.

Appellant’s Evidence

21The appellant disagrees with the diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. She testifies she only uses alcohol to calm her agitation and stress. She testifies she drinks two or three times a week and when she drinks she never drives her car. She also states she does not have access to other vehicles.

22The appellant testifies she drinks wine and beer in the evening and never more than a bottle of wine or five or six bottles of beer. The appellant states she drinks alone and has the alcohol delivered by a delivery service, never going out to a public bar or tavern.

23The appellant denies being an alcoholic and states she has never had any withdrawal symptoms. She states she has been in many rehabilitation programs and the amount of alcohol she drinks is much less than many of the other patients.

24The appellant feels she is a safe driver and needs her car to carry on day-to-day activities and to visit her daughter with whom she has recently reconnected.

25The appellant draws attention to the January 19, 2023 letter from her psychiatrist Dr. Guller who recommends the reinstatement of driving privilege with the use of ignition interlock device in her car. Her position is that this would make it safe for her to drive and solve her problem. She further states in her opinion all cars should have such a device installed.

26The appellant testifies she is on a wait list for the three month inpatient alcohol program at Waypoint (Penetanguishene, Ontario). She testifies this will be helpful to help her deal with her use of alcohol, but does not feel it should delay the reinstatement of her licence

27The appellant testifies she is on an antidepressant medication and Seroquel an anti-psychotic medication. She points out she takes the medication regularly and for the most part it controls her moods. The appellant’s position is that driving is part of therapy she needs. She feels that to regain her licence and be able to get away in her car would help her mental health and she would not need to medicate with alcohol.

Analysis

28I find that the appellant continues to drink alcohol on a regular basis and in amounts that are consistent with alcohol use disorder.

29The amount and frequency of alcohol consumption has not decreased in spite of the September 2, 2022 ADLS. The appellant testifies she drank alcohol the night before this hearing and required treatment in hospital for suicidal ideation and cutting behaviour.

30I concur with both the Registrar and appellant that the three-month alcohol treatment program will be helpful. The appellant testifies she has been in many rehabilitation programs without success and so the longer more intense program would be the best option. I prefer the Registrar’s position that the program should come before her licence is reinstated.

31The ignition interlock device is an interesting idea and may have some merit and the appellant’s psychiatrist supports this idea. However, I accept the Registrar’s argument that in this case, evidence has shown the alcohol use disorder has many accompanying symptoms, such as depression, suicidal ideation, cutting behaviour and anxiety that have affected the appellant. These symptoms may well affect the appellant’s ability to drive as much as the alcohol level itself. I find that the treatment of the alcohol use disorder needs to be completed and that a breathalyzer/interlock device alone does not achieve that goal.

32I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition of alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle. I agree with the Registrar that the CCMTA Standards, chapter 15.6.3 is reasonable and relevant to the appellant, and I apply chapter 15.6.3 to this case. I find that both an alcohol treatment program and a period of abstinence are needed before the appellant’s licence can be considered for reinstatement.

33While I accept the appellant’s feelings of need for her motor vehicle, and her frustration in having to wait for the treatment program, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrates that there is still an alcohol use disorder and it is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely. I find that reinstating the appellant’s Class G licence at this time would present a significant risk to the safety of the appellant, her potential passengers, and others using the roadways.

Order

34For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class G License.