Satish Shellikeri v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 108243

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16092/MED

Appeal under section 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "HTA"), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a driver's licence under subsection 47(1) of the HTA.

Between:

Satish Shellikeri

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION AND ORDER

ADJUDICATOR: Dr. Peter Savage, Member

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant: Satish Shellikeri Mehria Yousefi, paralegal for the appellant

For the Respondent: Sharon Nelson

Heard by Zoom Teleconference: September 25, 2024

REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

A. OVERVIEW:

1On July 18, 2024, 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"), after receiving a report from a physician that the appellant suffers from an alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. The appellant appeals the suspension and asks the Tribunal to reinstate his licence.

2Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, the Tribunal sets aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence for medical reasons.

B. ISSUES:

3The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from an alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder conditions that are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely.

4To answer that issue, I will address the following questions:

a. Does the appellant suffer from an alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder conditions?

b. If the appellant suffers from these conditions, are they likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle of the applicable class safely?

C. LAW:

5Under the HTA, the Registrar is responsible for ensuring that drivers are medically fit to drive vehicles on the highway. In this case, the Registrar acted pursuant to s. 47(1) of the HTA and s. 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 under the HTA (the "Regulation"). Under s. 14(1)(a) of the Regulation, 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 their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Section 47(1)(g) of the HTA permits the Registrar to suspend a driver's licence for any sufficient reason.

6Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Registrar may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that he or she is able to drive safely.

7A person whose licence is suspended under these provisions may appeal the suspension to the Tribunal under s. 50(1) of the HTA.

8On appeal, the Registrar has the burden of establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant has a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely.

9Following a hearing, the Tribunal may, under s. 50(2) of the HTA, confirm, modify or set aside the decision or order of the Registrar.

D. EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS:

a. Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder and alcohol withdrawal seizure conditions?

10The Registrar alleges that the appellant suffers from an alcohol withdrawal seizure based on the medical reports received by the Registrar. The substance use disorder condition is known to be related to an alcohol withdrawal seizure and was verified by a substance abuse questionnaire.

11The unsolicited medical report of an alcohol withdrawal seizure was received June 28, 2024 from an emergency physician. The signature is unreadable and there is no evidence other than a checkmark in the alcohol withdrawal seizure box.

12The diagnosis of alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder were confirmed by Dr. Boland, the appellant's new family doctor. Dr. Boland completed the substance use questionnaire of July 29, 2024

13The appellant testified that he had an alcohol-related crisis and was admitted to hospital. He is not aware of having a seizure. He denied regular use of alcohol but admitted that he misused alcohol, resulting in his hospital admission.

14The appellant testified he has issues of depression and isolation since his wife's death and that he continues treatment for this condition. He testified that his experience with misuse of alcohol has led him to make a number of beneficial changes.

15The medical evidence presented supports the conclusion that the appellant suffers from an alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder. The appellant's testimony confirms this conclusion. The appellant's evidence of his lack of awareness of an alcohol withdrawal seizure does not shake my conclusion about the alcohol withdrawal seizure.

16On a balance of probabilities, I find the Registrar has established the appellant has the medical conditions alleged.

b. If the appellant suffers from the medical conditions, are they likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely?

17The Registrar has the burden of establishing that the appellant's medical conditions are likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. I find that the Registrar has not met that burden.

18The Registrar drew attention to the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers (CCMTA Standards). The CCMTA Standards were developed by North American road safety experts and, pursuant to s. 14(2)(a) of the Regulation, may by considered by both the Registrar and the Tribunal, though they are not binding.

19In relying on the CCMTA Standards, the Registrar pointed out the dangers that an alcohol withdrawal seizure and a substance use disorder could cause a person while driving. The Registrar outlined the CCMTA Standards' requirements for licence reinstatement of a person with these conditions (section 15.6.3 and 17.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards, included in exhibit #2). The key points from these sections are that the driver meets the criteria of remission and has completed an alcohol treatment program with a favourable report from the treating professional, as well as medical evidence that the episode of seizure was related to alcohol withdrawal and not epilepsy.

20The Registrar pointed out the Ministry of Transportation (the "MOT") has an internal policy that requires documentation of a minimum period of six months' abstinence from alcohol notwithstanding the completion of an alcohol treatment program.

21The appellant's position is that he is a safe driver, has a safe driving record and maintains that the episode of alcohol withdrawal toxicity was a solitary episode related to intense emotional distress in reaction to the death of his brother-in-law while he was still grieving the loss of his wife. He maintains he is aware of how it happened and has taken every step possible to ensure it does not happen again.

22The appellant testified that he did have a three-day hospitalization in June 2024. He was depressed and already in counselling related to the death of his wife and when he received the news of his brother in law's death, he just began to drink vodka. He testifies he was not a regular drinker and over a three-day period, he grieved, didn't eat and drank vodka. When his daughter found him, he was in bed and not coherent; she called an ambulance and he was taken to hospital.

23The appellant also testified that:

1. He has insight into his current situation and has accepted the mistake he made in using alcohol to manage his grief and isolation.
2. He is not a regular drinker.
3. He is in therapy with a team and continues to work on his issues of grief and loneliness.
4. He completed a six-week alcohol rehabilitation course (PCHS Sahara Addiction program) and presented a letter of support from the addiction specialist.
5. He has strong family support as well as support from his church and his expanded community.
6. He has joined AA and attends noon hour meetings regularly. He has a sponsor and continues to learn about the dangers of alcohol.
7. Dr. Boland wrote a letter of July 29, 2024 verifying that the seizure was an alcohol withdrawal-related seizure, that the appellant has not had a repeat episode and that the appellant has not taken alcohol since the June 2024 episode.
8. He is not on any medications for alcohol treatment, seizure or depression but he takes medication for cholesterol and blood pressure only.
9. He has reached out to the community, is involved in sporting activity with an expanded group of friends and is involved in a small catering business that he is running from his home.

24The appellant submits that the CCMTA Standards allow for earlier relicensing for drivers who have completed an alcohol rehabilitation program and have a positive report from their addiction specialist. He also submits that he is involved with sporting activity with an expanded group of friends and is involved in a small catering business that he is running from his home. He has a supporting letter from his addiction counsellor and has completed such a program. The appellant also notes Dr. Boland has stated that the seizure was alcohol-related and there has been no recurrences. The appellant submits that he has satisfied the CCMTA Standards' criteria for relicensing for the condition of both alcohol withdrawal seizure and substance use disorder.

25The critical issue that is preventing the Registrar from relicensing the appellant appears to be the period of abstinence from alcohol. The Registrar strongly argues for a period of six months to ensure compliance and to protect public safety. The appellant argues that enough time has passed and his addiction councillor expresses concern that delay in returning his licence may lead to an exacerbation of his depression and earlier relicensing is needed for his mental and emotional health.

26I find the appellant has insight into his condition and has taken steps to manage it. I am very compelled by the addiction councillors letter of support. I am reassured by the appellant's insight and acceptance of his condition as well as his medical and family support. I accept the appellant's argument that he meets the CCMTA Standards for relicensing. The Registrar's position that written documentation of six months of stability is required is based on an internal policy that does not bind either the appellant or the Tribunal. Every case must be judged on its own merits and in this case I believe three months is a sufficient period of abstinence. After a review of the evidence and the parties' submissions, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant's substance abuse and alcohol withdrawal seizure conditions are not likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a vehicle safely.

E. ORDER:

27For 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 driver's licence for medical reasons.