Bryne Patry v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2023 CanLII 42552

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14676 MED

In the matter of an appeal from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence under Section 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8.

Between:

Bryne Patry

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. Peter Savage Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Bryne Patry, Appellant Jami Sanftleben, Appellant’s Representative

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: April 18, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Bryne Patry (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 an alcohol use disorder, 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 driver’s licence.

3Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we confirm the decision of the Registrar.

ISSUES

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:

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely an alcohol use disorder?

ii. If the appellant does suffer from alcohol use disorder, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

RESULT

6We find the appellant does suffer from an alcohol use disorder and it is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. As previously noted, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The Law

7The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence. One 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.

8Section 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.”

9Section 203(1) of the Act 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.

10Section 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.

11The 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.

12Pursuant 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.

Does the appellant suffer from an alcohol use disorder?

13The evidence satisfies us on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder.

14We note that the medical evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder including the Medical Condition Report (“MCR”) dated January 5, 2023, completed by Dr. Kathryn Trebuss, a family/treating physician at Providence Care Hospital. The MCR states the appellant suffers from alcohol and other substances and that he has been compliant in treatment recommendation for the past 2 months while in a hospital environment. The MCR further notes resolving delirium under the cognitive impairment section of the MCR.

15The Substance Use Assessment dated January 27, 2023, which was completed by Dr. Matt Wonnacott, states that the appellant has been diagnosed with severe substance use disorder given his alcohol use. Dr. Wonnacott completed a further Substance Use Assessment, dated April 14, 2023, in which he again states the appellant suffers from severe substance use disorder related to alcohol.

16The appellant testified that prior his hospitalization in November 2022 he was consuming 10 to 12 drinks of spirits a day. He testified that at the time of his hospitalization, his alcohol consumption was getting out of control. He had been drinking alcohol heavily since his twenties, a period of about 50 years. He testified that prior to his hospitalization he was seeing things, falling and thought someone else was in the home which symptoms he had never experienced before.

17The appellant’s son testified in the months prior to his hospitalization the appellant was drinking about a 60 oz bottle of vodka each day.

18Given the evidence before us, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from an alcohol use disorder.

Is the appellant’s alcohol use disorder likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

19The Registrar has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. We find that the Registrar has met its burden.

20The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards which provide that drivers suffering from alcohol use disorder may be eligible for a licence if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained from alcohol for twelve months. The CCMTA Standards also state that earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist and/or treating physician recognised by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program.

21The Tribunal is entitled to take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them.

22While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and provide assistance, every case must be considered on its own facts.

23The appellant testified that he has stopped drinking alcohol and that he needs his vehicle to complete his day-to-day tasks. He lives with his wife who has a driver’s licence but he is the one that usually drives.

24The appellant testified that prior to his hospitalization in November 2022, he was falling a lot and had balance issues, which may possibly be the result of his drinking and taking pills but he remains unsure. He initially thought his falling and decline was the result of a balance issue and later wondered if it was the result of heart issues. He was using a walker at the time. His adult children called an ambulance after a fall and he stayed in the hospital about 3 weeks and was then transferred to Providence Health for physical rehabilitation. He has been home since January 12, 2023, and testified that things feel normal and he has not been drinking. He is on medication to assist him with refraining from alcohol use. He testified that he does not want to drink because he wants to live longer and more fully. He testified that he quit drinking cold turkey. He is currently under the care of a cardiologist and takes medications for his heart. He is fearful that if he drinks it could interact with his medications.

25The appellant’s son testified that the appellant would not attend the group sessions while in the hospital so the counsellor would come to his room to do one-on-one counselling on a weekly basis. The social worker would drop by several times a week to discuss his alcohol use. The doctor visited the appellant daily and had sessions to deal with his alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The appellant’s son further testified that the appellant is much sharper now and does not use his walker all the time and is a completely different person since he stopped drinking.

26In our view, it is notable that the appellant is not attending ongoing treatment for his alcohol use disorder and he believes he does not require any ongoing treatment. At one point during the hearing, the appellant testified that he did not think anything was wrong with his drinking. The appellant also has no scheduled appointments or follow up with his family doctor to manage his alcohol use disorder. There was an intention to schedule monthly appointments with his family doctor to ensure that he has the assistance that he needs, however, none have been scheduled. The appellant testified that he intends to rely on his family doctor, medication and his family to ensure he does not touch alcohol again.

27While the appellant has made steady progress, we do not have confidence that his alcohol use disorder would not significantly interfere with his driving. While he has attended some counseling in the hospital, it does not appear to be a standard rehabilitation program, and he refused to attend group therapy. Since leaving the hospital, he has engaged in no treatment or addictions counselling and has no intention to do so.

28We are also persuaded by the Substance Use Disorder Assessments completed by the appellant’s family physician which note the appellant has not completed a supervised treatment program as a result of his reported alcohol use disorder. We agree with the Registrar’s submission that there is no convincing evidence that the appellant has successfully completed a rehabilitation program.

29Given the medical evidence, we are persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards. We find that there is no medical evidence to suggest that the appellant is currently addressing his alcohol use disorder through treatment of any kind, nor has he successfully completed a drug rehabilitation program. There is also no favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist or his family/treating physician stating that it is safe for him to drive a motor vehicle. He falls short of the criteria set out in the CCMTA Standards for earlier re-licensing.

30Based upon a careful consideration of all the evidence before us, we are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s alcohol use disorder is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

31For the reasons set out above, pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, we find the appellant does suffer from an alcohol use disorder and that it will significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. We confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

Licence Appeal Tribunal

Peter Savage, Member

Rupinder Hans, Member