Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 14837/MED

In the matter of 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:

Mahyar Salamzadeh

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Peter Savage, M.D., Member

Avril A. Farlam, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

No one attended

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

Heard by Videoconference: July 27, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Mahyar Salamzadeh (the “appellant”) appeals the decision of the Registrar to suspend his Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the Registrar received a report from a physician that the appellant suffers from syncope/loss of consciousness.

2Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the Act (the “Regulation”) states that a holder of a driver’s licence must not suffer from any physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. The appellant in his Notice of Appeal states that the medical report relied on by the respondent is false, denies that he suffers from syncope/loss of consciousness and states that he was “having a bad day.” The appellant also denies that his medical condition, syncope/loss of consciousness, interferes with his ability to drive safely.

Appellant failed to Attend the Hearing

5This hearing was originally scheduled to be heard on May 15, 2023. At that time the appellant attended the hearing, requested an adjournment of the hearing and agreed to the new hearing dates including July 27, 2023.

6The appellant’s adjournment request was granted. The hearing was rescheduled to July 27, 2023.

7Despite being sent notice of the hearing and a reminder of the hearing date by Tribunal staff prior to July 27, 2023, the appellant failed to attend the hearing on July 27, 2023.

8When the appellant did not attend at the beginning of the hearing on July 27, 2023, we waited 15 minutes for the appellant to attend the hearing. During this 15 minutes, the Tribunal staff called the appellant’s telephone number on file three separate times and received a message each time that the number called is not assigned.

9The Registrar submitted that the hearing should proceed in the absence of the appellant who has already been granted an adjournment once, agreed to this new date for the hearing and yet failed to attend.

10We accepted the Registrar’s submission and the hearing proceeded in the absence of the appellant.

11We accepted as exhibits at the hearing the medical documentation provided by the appellant’s psychiatrist Dr. Chahal and the appellant’s neurologist Dr. Santhiramohan which had been sent by the appellant to the Tribunal prior to the hearing.

12Having considered all the evidence, and for the reasons which follow, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ISSUE

13The issue in dispute is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

14To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

i. Does the appellant suffer from syncope/loss of consciousness?

ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

ANALYSIS

The appellant suffers from syncope/loss of consciousness

15The evidence presented at the hearing supports the Registrar’s allegation that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness.

16The only reliable, unredacted, report from a physician in evidence before us is the September 20, 2022 report from Dr. Kayla Walderman which diagnoses the appellant with “Blackout or Loss of consciousness or Awareness”. This report was sent to the Ministry of Transportation as required under s. 203 of the Act.

17Although the appellant filed a June 30, 2023 progress note made by his neurologist Dr. Ratha Santhiramohan, in this note Dr. Santhiramohan appears to decline to comment on Dr. Walderman’s September, 2022 diagnosis because “Unfortunately I do not know exactly what happened.” Further, this medical record is redacted. We have no evidence before us as to why the record was redacted, by whom or what the missing information relates to. As a result, we cannot attribute any weight to this medical record.

18The appellant also filed a May 8, 2023 report from the appellant’s psychiatrist Dr. Khushminder Chahal in which Dr. Chahal diagnoses the appellant with another medical condition, not syncope/loss of consciousness, and in which Dr. Chahal does not appear to opine on Dr. Walderman’s diagnosis. This medical record is also redacted and again, we have no evidence before us as to why, by whom or what the missing medical information relates to. As a result, we cannot attribute any weight to this medical record.

19We prefer the evidence of Dr. Walderman over of the medical reports of Drs. Santhiramohan and Chahal filed by the appellant because Dr. Walderman’s report is unredacted and it is not contradicted by any other physician’s opinion. The appellant’s submission in his Notice of Appeal that Dr. Walderman’s report is false is unsupported by any evidence at the hearing.

20We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness.

The appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely

21We are satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

22The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (the “CCMTA Standards”) and argues that the licence suspension should be confirmed by the Tribunal. Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the CCMTA Standards when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding on us.

23Chapter 19 of the CCMTA Standards addresses syncope, for which the non-medical term is fainting. Chapter 19.4 notes that syncope causes an episodic impairment of all the functions necessary for driving. Chapter 19.6 outlines guidelines for assessment depending on the type of syncope and sets out standards for non-commercial drivers.

24The Registrar submits that there are concerns about the appellant’s syncope based on Chapter 19 and particularly 19.6 because of the limited medical information available about the appellant’s diagnosed syncope/loss of consciousness. As established by the correspondence filed by the Registrar, the Registrar has sought further information from the appellant about his medical condition which has not been forthcoming from the appellant.

25Although we are not bound by the CCMTA Standards, we find them to be reasonable. As Chapter 19 discusses, episodic impairment of all the functions for driving is concerning and is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Although the appellant states in his Notice of Appeal that he has “…never had any medical or health conditions in my twenty-one years of drivings…”, the medical evidence before us indicates that the appellant now does have a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. Syncope/loss of consciousness is inconsistent with the uninterrupted, consistent control of a motor vehicle sharing the road with other motor vehicles.

26We are satisfied that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Conclusion(s)

27We find that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness, that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

28For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.