Thompson v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 CanLII 118785

RECONSIDERATION DECISION

Before: Dr. Kailey Minnings

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 16049/MED

Case Name: Jennifer Thompson v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Written Submissions by:

For the Appellant: Jennifer Thompson, Self-represented

For the Respondent: Sharon Nelson

OVERVIEW

1The appellant requests reconsideration of the Licence Appeal Tribunal’s (“Tribunal”) decision following a hearing on July 31, 2024. In a decision dated August 28, 2024 (“decision”), the Tribunal confirmed the Registrar’s order suspending the appellant’s driver’s licence for medical reasons.

2The appellant now requests reconsideration of this decision based on her allegations that: the Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules of procedural fairness; 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; and 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.

3The respondent’s position is that the appellant’s submissions fail to demonstrate overriding errors or fundamental evidentiary concerns and the respondent requests the Tribunal dismiss the reconsideration request.

4The criteria for granting reconsideration are set out in Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). A request for reconsideration will not be granted unless one or more of the following criteria are met:

a) The Tribunal acted outside its jurisdiction or violated the rules 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;

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.

5Under Rule 18.2, the threshold for reconsideration is high. Reconsideration a limited, error-correcting exercise, not a new hearing or an appeal of a hearing decision. The party requesting reconsideration must demonstrate how or why the decision falls into one or more of the criteria set out in Rule 18.2 and the onus is on the moving party to identify where the Tribunal significant legal or evidentiary mistake, or where genuinely new and undiscoverable evidence comes to light after a hearing. A reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue issues canvassed at the hearing nor is it an opportunity to submit new evidence that was reasonably available at the time of the hearing but was not presented for whatever reason.

6The appellant relies on the criteria set out in subsections a), b) and c) and has provided additional evidence for consideration.

RESULT

7I find that the appellant has not established a ground for reconsideration and the appellant’s request is denied.

ANALYSIS

The Tribunal did not act outside its jurisdiction nor commit a material breach of procedural fairness.

8On her Request for Reconsideration form, the appellant alleges that the Tribunal acted outside of its jurisdiction or committed a material breach of procedural fairness.

9However, the appellant’s submissions were reviewed and there was no supporting documentation or reasons included specifying that, or in what way, the Tribunal acted outside of its jurisdiction or committed an error in procedural fairness. To meet the onus required for reconsideration of a decision, a requester must provide some evidence and argument to the Tribunal stating how the Tribunal erred. The appellant in this case has provided neither.

10I find that the appellant has not established this ground for reconsideration under Rule 18.2 (a).

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.

11Having reviewed the decision, I find no error of fact or law in it.

12The appellant expresses disagreement with the Tribunal’s decision. She submits a list of 24 points, including the following arguments which have been summarized:

that during her hospital stays she was only offered a blood pressure pill and a sleeping pill and was never offered other medications;
that following both hospital discharges, she had no new prescriptions or follow up appointments;
that she successfully won an appeal to leave the hospital during one of her admissions;
that she was placed on a Form 1 in error;
that antipsychotic medications were only offered on an as needed basis;
that she had side effects from the antipsychotic medication;
that she was a victim of poor patient care;
that her psychiatrist declined give her a follow up appointment;
that her healthcare providers would not work with her on a plan to reinstate her licence;
that her primary care provider should not have faxed a form directly to the Registrar without sharing it with her;
that she never declined to follow up with her healthcare providers and has been adherent to medication;
that she is a nurse and therefore has knowledge and insight into mental health conditions;
that she is physically fit, does not drink or use drugs;
that she is fully cooperative; and
that she is unable to find a healthcare provider to complete forms or documentation that she requires for licence reinstatement.

13These points reiterate the same evidence presented orally in the hearing. While it is well established that the Tribunal need not refer to every piece of evidence, authority cited or submission made, paragraphs 12, 13, 14, and 22 of the decision show that the appellant’s evidence and submissions were taken into account. The weight assigned to the appellant’s oral testimony and evidence compared to the medical evidence submitted is explained in the decision in paragraphs 15, 23, 24, and 25. As stated previously, a reconsideration is not an opportunity to reargue issues canvassed at the hearing, nor is it a means to continue a hearing.

14The appellant submits additional points, which I will address individually. Firstly, the appellant submits she was discriminated against for seeking medical attention for anxiety, however, she has failed to specify how the paragraphs she takes issue with amount to discrimination.

15I disagree that there has been any form of discrimination in the Tribunal’s decision, and the appellant has failed to establish how she was discriminated against.

16The appellant asserts that her driver’s licence was suspended for psychosis, which, she writes, is a condition she never had.

17The appellant’s driver’s licence is suspended for “mental health condition”, not psychosis specifically, as stated in paragraph 7 of the decision and paragraph 17 of the Case Conference Report and Order. The analysis regarding the issue of whether the appellant has a mental health condition is presented in paragraphs 10-16 of the decision.

18I find that this does not amount to an error of fact or law.

19The appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in determining that she suffers from a mental health condition on a balance of probabilities. She asserts that on a balance of probabilities is “not concrete enough” and that “… this would not hold in a court of law with this type of wording”.

20In fact, on a balance of probabilities is the standard of proof used to make findings of fact in Tribunal proceedings such as hers. The appellant fails to identify a different standard of proof or justify why another standard is the correct one to use.

21I find that this does not amount to an error of fact or law as alleged.

22The appellant disagrees with the finding that she lacks insight into her condition. She submits that she has a nursing diploma, and that “nursing knowledge should hold a lot of weight establishing insight, knowledge, and adherence to medication for any medical condition”.

23The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant has a nursing diploma and knowledge and experience as a personal support worker. The Tribunal’s finding that the appellant lacks insight into her condition is, however, based on the medical documentation submitted as evidence as described in detail in paragraphs 11, 23 and 25. Further, “insight”, as it relates to mental health conditions, is defined in the CCMTA standards and in paragraph 25 and is distinct from knowledge and medication adherence.

24I am not satisfied that the Tribunal made an error of fact or law in this regard.

25I find that the appellant has not established any error of law or fact made by the Tribunal that would have resulted in a different decision, and therefore has not satisfied the ground for reconsideration in Rule 18.2 (b).

The new evidence submitted by the appellant could have reasonably been obtained previously and would not likely have affected the result.

26The appellant has provided additional evidence for consideration, consisting of a narrative letter from a social worker at the Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelly Gilbert, dated September 16, 2024.

27The respondent’s position is that this new evidence should not be admitted, as it does not meet the requirements for the admission of new evidence as per Rule 18.2 c) of the Rules.

28Within her submissions, the appellant states that she has been working with Ms. Gilbert for six months. I find that there was no explanation as to why the letter was only completed and submitted after the Tribunal rendered its decision. There is no indication that the letter could not reasonably have been obtained prior to the hearing. Further, the letter does not contain information regarding the appellant’s ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

29I find that the appellant has failed to establish that 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.

30The criteria for reconsideration set out in Rule 18.2(c) has not been met.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

31For the reasons noted above, I dismiss the appellant’s request for reconsideration.

Kailey Minnings

Adjudicator

Tribunals Ontario – Licence Appeal Tribunal

Released: November 28, 2024