Date: 2023-04-18

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:

Paul Hicks

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES

For the Appellant: Paul Hicks, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Agent

Heard by Teleconference: April 12, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. Overview

1On January 23, 2023, 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 substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure which requires that his 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 set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class G driver’s licence.

B. Issue

4The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from medical conditions (substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure) that are likely to significantly interfere with his 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 substance use disorder or alcohol withdrawal seizure?

2. Are these conditions likely to 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 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 a substance use disorder or alcohol withdrawal seizure?

12The appellant was diagnosed with substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure by a family doctor who reported him to the Registrar. The substance identified was alcohol. Both diagnoses were confirmed by the appellant’s family doctor in the substance abuse questionnaire.

13The appellant does not dispute the diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal seizure but, in his opinion, he does not have a substance use disorder. He admits to a period of heavy drinking from October 2022 until December 2022. He recognized the problem and stopped drinking on his own and this resulted in the withdrawal seizure.

14The appellant’s opinion is not supported in the medical reports, where both physicians diagnose substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure and I am satisfied that the appellant suffers from a substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure.

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

Registrar’s Evidence

15The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant’s substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

16The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, chapter 15, which describes substance use disorder and the dangers this condition can cause in drivers. The Registrar relies chapter 15.6.3 which recommends a period of abstinence of 12 months which may be reduced if a recognized treatment program has been undertaken.

17The Registrar submits that, as set out in the CCMTA Standards, chapter 15, even mild-moderate substance use disorder can lead to a catastrophic result in some drivers and notes that the appellant’s family doctor has diagnosed moderate substance use disorder.

18The Registrar points out the CCMTA Standards, chapter 17 describes the dangers of alcohol withdrawal seizures and chapter 17.6.3 recommends that all drivers are eligible for a licence if the treating physician has confirmed that the cause of the seizure was alcohol withdrawal and they have undergone addiction treatment and received a favourable report from an addiction counsellor and they have met the criteria for licence reinstatement in accordance with the substance use disorder standard.

19The Registrar points out that although the appellant’s family doctor and counsellor (in this case, social worker) support the return of driving privileges, the appellant has been abstinent for a period of only three and a half months. The Registrar also points out the substance abuse program the appellant underwent seems somewhat short, with further follow up only if the appellant requests it and that follow up will have to be by phone.

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

Appellant’s Evidence

21The appellant testifies he realized he was drinking too much and he himself made the decision to stop drinking. He stopped cold turkey after an evening of heavy drinking. Seventeen hours later he had a spell which the doctors subsequently diagnosed as an alcohol withdrawal seizure. The appellant did not seek medical attention at the time of this spell.

22The appellant states that he went into his doctor’s office several days after his spell and asked for help in controlling his drinking. He testifies at that time he became aware he had suffered an alcohol withdrawal seizure. He testifies he received a great deal of support from his family doctor and his social worker and has stopped drinking with no further seizures or complications.

23The appellant draws my attention to his family doctor’s statement in his substance use questionnaire noting the doctor’s opinion that he is now fit to drive and stating that his substance abuse was not severe but only moderate.

24The appellant also points to the letter from the social worker stating her support for the reinstatement of his licence.

25The appellant does not deny having an alcohol withdrawal seizure but he notes that he has fulfilled all the requirements of chapter 17.6.3 of the CCMTA. His doctor has verified the seizure was due to alcohol withdrawal and his social worker and doctor support a return of his licence.

26The appellant points out his clean driving record and denies ever drinking and driving. The appellant testifies his job involves working overseas in an Islamic country in a role involving security. Drinking of alcohol is forbidden in this country.

Analysis

27The appellant testifies in a straight-forward and compelling manner. The appellant argues, and I agree, that each case should be judged individually and guidelines should be considered but they are not the law.

28The spell he had in January 2023 was on the balance of probability an alcohol withdrawal seizure and the evidence presented shows his doctor feels he is fit to drive. Also, he has met the CCMTA recommendations for relicensing pertinent to his alcohol withdrawal seizure.

29This leaves the issue of substance use disorder and appellant has taken very rapid and aggressive steps to control his condition. The appellant points out that steps were taken prior to the loss of his licence, suggesting insight into his condition.

30The appellant has put together a team of professionals to help him control his condition and to monitor and follow up his medical progress and compliance.

31The appellant has the support of his social worker and his doctor who both feel his licence should be reinstated.

32While the appellant has only three and a half months of sobriety, he testifies he is working overseas in a country where alcohol is not allowed in the workplace or in the residences.

33The appellant is taking no medications and does not use any recreational drugs.

34The appellant recognized he had slipped into a pattern of drinking that was not healthy and stopped drinking on his own. This led to the withdrawal seizure and ultimately to the involvement of his medical team and a well-organized and monitored alcohol withdrawal program.

35I find that the Registrar has not established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical conditions of substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle. I agree with the Registrar that the CCMTA Standards are an important guideline but I accept them as guidelines and not the law.

36While I heard the Registrar’s argument for a longer period of time of abstinence and further therapy, I preferred the evidence from the appellant’s doctor and social worker who stated he was fit to drive. I am persuaded by the evidence of the steps taken by the appellant and the support of his medical team that his licence should be reinstated

E. Order

37For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the HTA, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s Class G License.