Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15233/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 Minister of Transportation to change a class of licence pursuant to s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act.

Between:

Philip Peppiatt

Appellant

and

Minister of Transportation

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Peter Savage, Member Jeffery Campbell, Vice-Chair

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Philipp Peppiatt, Appellant

For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Agent

Held by teleconference: October13, 2023

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

OVERVIEW

1Philipp Pepilatt, the appellant, appeals the decision of the respondent Minister of Transportation (the “Minister”) to change the appellant’s driver’s licence. The appellant was initially advised of a suspension of his commercial driver’s licence by way of letter dated May 17, 2023. The suspension was later revised to a change of the appellant’s licence from a AMZ licence to a Class GMZ licence.

2The Minister takes the position that the appellant is suffering from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. The basis for the Minister’s position is that the appellant has a condition of Seizure, Syncope/Loss of Consciousness.

3The Minister has the authority under s. 32(5)(b)(i) of the Act to change the class of a person’s driver’s licence. Section 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.

4The appellant appeals the change of his licence class under s. 50(1) of the Act.

5Pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, after a hearing, the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Minister.

ISSUES

6The 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 of the applicable class safely.

7To resolve that issue, we will address the following questions:

1. Does the appellant suffer from medical condition, namely seizure, syncope/loss of consciousness?

2. If the appellant does suffer from the above condition, is that condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of applicable class safely?

RESULT

8For the reasons set out below, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we set aside the Minister’s decision to change the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

The appellant does not suffer from seizure, syncope/loss of consciousness

9We find that the appellant does not suffer from seizure, syncope/loss of consciousness (“medical condition”).

10In support of its allegation that the appellant suffers from the medical condition, the Minister relies on a Medical Condition Report by ER physician Dr. Irene Mitrana dated May 8, 2023 (“MCR”) and on a syncope/loss of consciousness form (“syncope form”) by Internist, Dr. Rebecca Van Alstine dated June 12, 2023.

Evidence and Analysis

11The appellant is employed as an AZ truck driver with Braniff Trucking Ltd. in Cambridge, Ontario. In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant advised that, at the time of what was later queried as a syncope episode, he had not been eating correctly due to financial strain. In his testimony, the appellant advised that he had not consumed food for 48 hours and was feeling weak and tired. At that point, his boss subsequently allowed him to take the truck back to the yard (about a 15 kilometre distance) then to go home. Once home, his mother took him to the Grand River Hospital Emergency Room in Kitchener, Ontario. The ER physician Dr. Irene Mitrana sent him for a diagnostic test, after which the appellant returned home. Dr. Mitrana subsequently submitted the MCR to the Ministry, noting “possible seizure or syncope – unclear, EEG pending”.

12Upon receipt of the MCR, the Ministry suspended the appellant’s driving privilege and requested that the appellant provide a treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner with a syncope form to be completed and returned.

13On June 12, 2023, Dr. Van Alstine submitted the syncope form on which she advised that the appellant experienced atypical vasovagal syncope. She advised that the most recent reported episode was 1 week to 3 months ago, and that the appellant had experienced one episode in the previous 12 months. She also advised that there was no loss of consciousness and an echocardiogram, EEG, CT, and Holter tests were conducted, showing “all normal”.

14It was upon receipt of the syncope form that the Minister changed the appellant’s commercial class AMZ licence to a class GMZ licence, by way of letter dated June 21, 2023. The Minister advised the appellant that, in order to regain his commercial licence, he needed a treating physician, specialist or nurse practitioner to confirm that he had not experienced any further episodes for at least one year.

15Following the letter dated June 21, 2023, Dr. Van Alstine submitted an undated letter to the Minister advising that the appellant “has been thoroughly investigated and has been cleared by me to have his license reinstated.”

16Subsequent to the letter from Dr. Van Alstine, the Minister advised the appellant by letter dated October 5, 2023 that it required confirmation that he has not experienced any further episodes of loss of consciousness for at least one year since the last episode.

17The appellant testified that, on May 8, 2023, he did not lose consciousness, nor was feeling faint. He was stressed and weak from fatigue and from not eating. He testified that he was too embarrassed to tell Dr. Mitrana that he was feeling weak as he did not have the finances to have enough food to feed himself after feeding his family.

18We found the appellant to be forthright in his testimony. We accept that the episode of weakness was likely the result of severe financial stress, fatigue and a lack of nutrition.

19We note that, in the MCR, Dr. Mitrana cited, “possible seizure or syncope” (emphasis added) yet avoided a definite diagnosis of the same. We also note that, after conducting a myriad of tests, Dr. Van Alstine advised in the syncope form that all of the tests returned normal. Her subsequent undated letter reinforced her conclusion that the appellant presents no risk in having a commercial class AMZ licence.

Conclusion

20We conclude that Dr. Mitiran provided no definitive diagnosis of seizure, syncope or loss of consciousness, but only the query of the same. Further, while Dr. Van Alstine noted in the sycope form that an atypical vasovagal syncope had occurred, all subsequent diagnostic tests returned normal. The appellant provided a reasonable explanation as to the events that lead to his weakened condition on May 8, 2023. We conclude that the appellant does not have a medical condition.

21As we find that the appellant does not suffer from a medical condition, it is unnecessary to consider whether that condition is likely to Interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

ORDER

29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we set aside the Minister’s decision to change the appellant’s licence from a class AMZ licence to a class GMZ licence.