RECONSIDERATION DECISION
Before: Colin Osterberg
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15931/MED
Case Name: John Omoruan v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Written Submissions by:
For the Appellant: John Omoruan, Self-represented
For the Respondent: Tianchu Gao, Articling Student
OVERVIEW
1On August 30, 2024, John Omoruan, the appellant, requested reconsideration of the Tribunal’s decision dated August 14, 2024 (“decision”).
2In the decision, the Tribunal found that the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Registrar), the respondent, had satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. As a result, the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
3The grounds for a request for reconsideration are found in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 (“Rules”). To grant a request for reconsideration, the Tribunal must be satisfied that one or more of the following criteria are met:
a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness;
b) The Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made; or
c) There is evidence that was not before the Tribunal when rendering its decision, could not have been obtained previously by the party now seeking to introduce it, and would likely have affected the result.
4The appellant alleges that the Tribunal made two errors of fact such that the Tribunal would likely have made a different decision had the errors not been made and relies on rule 18.2(b) of the Rules. In particular, the appellant argues that the Tribunal made the following errors:
a) Failing to request a medical test to prove an existing medical condition; and
b) Basing its determination that the appellant’s medical condition significantly interfered with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely on inadequate and dated evidence.
5In addition, the appellant alleges that the Tribunal reversed the burden of proof in the decision and required the appellant to establish that he did not suffer from a medical condition which significantly interferes with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. If established, the appellant submitted that this would constitute an error of law.
6The appellant asks that the decision be quashed or that the Tribunal obtain an independent medical report to confirm whether the appellant has a medical condition that significantly affects his ability to drive. Alternatively, the appellant requests the Tribunal order that the appellant undergo a new driving assessment or to make another order the Tribunal deems fit.
RESULT
7The appellant has failed to establish that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. I confirm the decision.
ANALYSIS
8The test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 involves a high threshold. The reconsideration process is not an opportunity for a party to re-litigate its position where it disagrees with the Tribunal’s decision, or with the weight assigned to the evidence. The requestor must show how or why the decision falls into one of the categories in Rule 18.2.
Failing to request a medical test to prove an existing medical condition
9I find that the Tribunal did not err in failing to request a medical test to prove an existing medical condition because the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to make such a request.
10The appellant argues that the Tribunal relied on dated medical reports in determining whether the appellant has an existing medical condition which significantly impacts his ability to drive. In his reconsideration submissions, the appellant phrases this complaint as a failure by the Tribunal to request further testing.
11Pursuant to s. 50(2) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the Act), the Tribunal may confirm, modify or set aside the decision of the Minster or Registrar after a person exercises their right to an appeal. There is nothing in the Act which authorizes the Tribunal to order that further testing be conducted. Therefore, there was no error made and the appellant is not entitled to a reconsideration on this basis.
Inadequate and dated evidence
12I find that the Tribunal did not err in law or fact regarding its consideration of the evidence before it at the hearing.
13The appellant submits that the Tribunal’s decision was based on a number of errors. The appellant makes a number of submissions in this regard: that the Tribunal relied on medical information which was dated, some being more than two years old; that it was an error to find that the more recent medical evidence was insufficient to prove that the appellant’s medical condition continues to impact his ability to drive; and that the Tribunal misinterpreted the medical evidence or weighed the evidence incorrectly.
14A request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to argue that the Tribunal ought to re-evaluate the evidence or weigh the evidence presented in a different way. This is effectively what the appellant is asking it to do in this case. The appellant has not set out any facts which the Tribunal found in error. Rather, he is attempting to reargue the case, using the evidence which was before the Tribunal and asking it to come to a different conclusion.
15In particular, the appellant alleges that the Tribunal wrongly relies on a report from 2022 that the appellant suffered a stroke, which he argues is irrelevant to his current condition since that stroke was successfully treated.
16In its decision, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant suffered a stroke in 2022 and relies on a number of medical reports, including medical reports of Dr. Fazi in September of 2022 and Dr. Scott in June of 2024, which indicate ongoing cognitive impairment or limitations. The Tribunal also refers to the results of a functional driving assessment in May 2024 which set out various skill deficits in the appellant’s driving ability.
17The fact that the Tribunal considered medical information from 2022 is not an error as alleged by the appellant. The Tribunal is entitled to determine what medical information is relevant and what weight to give to that medical information. It is reasonable to have determined that the appellant’s stroke in 2022 is relevant to the appellant’s current ability to drive a motor vehicle safely, particularly where there is ongoing evidence of impairment as was set out by the Tribunal. I find no error in this regard.
18In addition, the appellant argues that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the report of the occupational therapist who conducted the driving assessment by finding that the occupational therapist concluded that the appellant has a cognitive impairment and that the cognitive impairment is linked to the appellant’s performance on the functional driving assessment. The appellant also argues that the Tribunal should have accepted the appellant’s submissions at the hearing about the persuasiveness of the results of the functional driving assessment which he considered to be improperly done.
19Again, in its decision, the Tribunal reviewed the qualifications of the occupational therapist and the conclusions contained in the functional driving assessment. The Tribunal also considered the appellant’s evidence and submissions regarding that assessment and concluded that the assessments of the appellant’s neurosurgeon, his neurologist, and the occupational therapist were sufficient to satisfy the Registrar’s onus of showing that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. The Tribunal preferred those opinions over those of the appellant and noted that the appellant did not submit medical evidence in support of his submission to the contrary.
20The Tribunal reviewed the evidence presented at the hearing, including the evidence which the appellant sets out in his reconsideration submissions, and concluded that the appellant has a medical condition which is likely to significantly impact his ability to driver a motor vehicle safely. That was a conclusion which was open to the Tribunal on the evidence presented and I find that the Tribunal did not make an error of fact or law in this regard.
21Therefore, the appellant has failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made. As such, a reconsideration is not granted on this basis.
The Tribunal did not reverse the burden of proof
22I find that the Tribunal did not make an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made regarding the burden of proof.
23The appellant alleges that the Tribunal reversed the onus of proof in paragraph 26 of the decision. In that paragraph, the Tribunal states:
I note that there is no medical evidence before me to support the appellant’s position that there are no lasting impairments or deficits.
24Taken in isolation, this sentence may be read to suggest that the burden was on the appellant to show that he did not suffer an impairment. However, when read in the context of the decision as a whole, it is clear that the Tribunal understood that the onus is on the Registrar to show that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and that the above passage is simply addressing the position that the appellant was taking at the hearing with respect to whether the impairments were ongoing. For example:
a) Paragraph 8: The Tribunal states that the Registrar bears to burden of proof;
b) Paragraph 9: The Tribunal states that the Registrar satisfied its burden;
c) Paragraph 15: The Tribunal states that the Registrar has established that the appellant suffered a stroke;
d) Paragraph 16: The Tribunal sets out its finding that the Registrar had proven that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to interfere with his ability to drive safely
e) Paragraphs 17-22: The Tribunal set out the evidence presented by the Registrar and the appellant with respect to the impact of the appellant’s medical condition on the appellants ability to drive safely; and
f) Paragraph 23: The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the appellant suffers from a condition that is likely to interfere significantly with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
25It is only after the Tribunal concluded that the Registrar had satisfied its burden that the Tribunal discusses whether the appellant has established that, despite this finding, the appellant should be relicensed on the bases set out in the CCMTA Standards in paragraph 26.
26Further, in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the decision, the Tribunal again reiterates that the burden is on the Registrar and that the Registrar had satisfied that burden of showing that the appellant does suffer from a condition that is likely to interfere significantly with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
27For all the reasons set out above, I find that the Tribunal did not reverse the burden of proof and made no error of law in this regard such that a reconsideration is warranted on this basis.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
28I find that the appellant has not established that the Tribunal made an error of law or fact such that the Tribunal would likely have reached a different result had the error not been made.
29The request for reconsideration is dismissed and the decision of the Tribunal is confirmed.
Colin Osterberg
Vice-Chair
Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal
Released: November 20, 2024