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:
Alan Murphy
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Alan Murphy, Appellant For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent
Held by teleconference: January 11, 2023
REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
A. Overview
1Alan Murphy (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar” or “respondent”) to suspend his driver’s licence for medical reasons.
2On August 7, 2022, the appellant was the driver in a single vehicle motor vehicle accident in city of Frederickton, New Brunswick.
3In response to a Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated August 7, 2022, completed by ER physician, Dr. Shawn Tiller, by letter dated August 11, 2022, 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 “Act”), for medical reasons.
4In the letter of August 11, 2022, the Registrar enclosed a Seizure and Loss of Consciousness form (“Seizure form”) and requested that the appellant have his treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner return it completed to the attention of the Driver Medical Review office.
5The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his licence.
6Having 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
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, we will address the following questions:
Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely a Syncope/Loss of Consciousness?
If the appellant does suffer from syncope/loss of consciousness, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
C. The Law
9The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any grounds listed in paragraphs (d), (e), (f) or (g) of that section. Paragraph (g) states that a licence may be suspended for “any other sufficient reason not referred to in clause (d), (e), or (f).”
10One sufficient reason to suspend a driver’s licence under s.47(1)(g) of the HTA is if the driver suffers from a medical condition or addiction likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely.
11Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 enacted 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.”
12Section 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.
13Section 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.
14The 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.
15Pursuant 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 a substance use disorder?
Evidence of the respondent
16In support of its allegation that the appellant suffers from a syncope/loss of consciousness, the Registrar relies on the MCR from Dr. Tiller as well as a Report of Motor Vehicle Accident, City of Fredericton (“MVA report”) dated August 7, 2022.
17In the MVA Report, a witness described the accident as follows:
“Vehicle heading East on highway 2 and appeared to have a medical episode, drove off the road and into the tree line.”
18In the MCR form, Dr. Tiller advised that the appellant suffers from Syncope/recurrent episodes.
19The Registrar also referred to a Horizon Health Network Emergency Record (“Emergency Record”), dated August 7, 2022, provided by the appellant. The Registrar submitted that nothing in the Emergency Record satisfies them that the appellant does not suffer from syncope/recurring episodes.
Testimony of the Appellant
20In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant advised that he believed that the medical episode which induced the motor vehicle accident of August 7, 2022 was the result of “being tired, hot weather and just not paying attention.”
21The appellant relies upon the Emergency Record, indicating that he underwent a number of tests, none of which indicates a problem.
22He testified that he remembers the accident, although the Emergency Record advised that he “does not recall accident, remembers getting out of vehicle.”
23He testified that he had had previous syncope episodes in the late 1980s and early 1990s but has not experienced them since. He advised Dr. Tiller of those episodes when Dr. Tiller questioned him about his past history of seizures.
24The appellant testified that he was unable to have the requested Seizures form completed as he has no family doctor, and medical professionals that he approached refused to complete it.
Conclusion
25Although we found the appellant’s testimony forthright, the only medical documentation directly related to the diagnosis of syncope/loss of consciousness are the MCR form and the Emergency Record, the latter which describes a syncope event and the former which diagnoses the same.
26Therefore, given the evidence before us, we find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness.
b. Is the appellant’s medical condition of syncope/loss of consciousness likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?
27The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s syncope/loss of conscious 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.
Submission of the Registrar
28The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, chapter 19 which describes syncope, and the concerns with driving with respect to that condition. The Registrar relies on chapter 19.6.7 which recommends that a driver is eligible for a licence if it has been at least three months since the last episode.
29The 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 syncope/recurrent disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. And while the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and helpful, every case must be considered on its own facts.
Testimony of the Appellant
30The appellant testified that he has not had a re-occurrence of episode of loss of consciousness.
Conclusion
31We note that the Emergency Record states that the appellant was,
“in MVA at 1700. PT crossed median into other lane and into brush. PT unable to remember event. States has previously passed out with low blood sugar. PT confused. Pupils perla. Repeating himself. Confused as to date and location.”
32As stated previously, Dr. Tiller, in the MCR form, subsequently diagnosed the appellant as suffering from syncope/recurrent episodes. No further medical documentation has been offered which refutes this diagnosis. Neither is there any documentation, such as a completed Seizure form, which would have addressed as to whether the appellant has experienced any subsequent episodes.
33Given the seriousness of the description in the Emergency Record of the appellants post-accident condition, as well as absent any further medical documentation, and in having found that the appellant suffers from syncope/recurrent episodes, we are persuaded to apply the CCMTA s. 19 which advises as to the effects of syncope on the ability to drive. We conclude that the Registrar has succeeded in establishing under s. 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 that appellant’s syncope/recurrent disorders is likely to interfere with his ability to drive 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.
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, Member
Jeffery Campbell, Vice Chair
Released: January 16, 2023