Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15401/MED

In the matter of an appeal under subsection 50(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”), from a decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles to suspend a licence pursuant to Section 47(1) of the Act.

Between:

Joseph Taggart

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Dr. Erica Weinberg

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Joseph Taggart, Self-Represented

For the Respondent:

Stephen Grootenboer, Representative

HEARD by teleconference: December 19, 2023

OVERVIEW

1Joseph Taggart (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “Registrar” or the “respondent”) to suspend their Class GM 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 treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their safety to drive.

2The Registrar has the authority under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver’s licence for any sufficient reason. 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 mental, emotional, nervous or physical condition or disability likely to significantly interfere with their ability to safely drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely. Under s. 14(2)(b) of the Regulation, the Minister of Transportation may require a driver to provide satisfactory evidence that they are able to drive safely.

3The Registrar takes the position that the appellant suffers from a condition, namely seizure due to alcohol withdrawal, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely and that this provides sufficient reason to suspend their licence under s. 47(1)(g) of the Act.

4The appellant appeals the suspension under s. 50(1) of the Act. They acknowledge that they had a seizure but deny the seizure was due to alcohol withdrawal and deny that they suffer from a medical condition which interferes with their ability to drive safely.

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 Registrar.

ISSUES

6The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal?

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

8The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes”.

RESULT

9Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has satisfied its burden to establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely and I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by medical reports completed by Drs. S. and D.

12In the April 17, 2023 Medical Condition Report, hospital physician, Dr. S., indicated that the appellant suffered sudden incapacitation due to seizure due to alcohol/drug withdrawal.

13In the August 28, 2023 completed substance use assessment form, Dr. D., a resident for Dr. G., indicated the appellant had a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal on April 16, 2023.

14The appellant accepts that they had a seizure on April 16, 2023. The appellant indicated: that their wife saw them having full body convulsions; they lost consciousness during the episode; and they woke up in an ambulance. However, despite acknowledging that Dr. S. recommended that they stop drinking alcohol and attend an alcohol treatment program, the appellant denies the seizure was related to alcohol. The appellant relates the cause of the seizure to high anxiety/stress/panic attack but admits that they have never lost consciousness with high anxiety/stress/panic attack previously.

15I prefer the evidence of Drs. S. and D. over that of the appellant and find, on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. The named doctors are qualified to make such a diagnosis and determine whether the appellant suffers from that condition. Drs. S. and D. were in a position to determine that the appellant suffers from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal and I accept the diagnosis.

16I assign less weight to the appellant’s self-assessment that they do not suffer from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. The appellant stated that they indicated to Dr. D. that the seizure may have been due to high anxiety or panic attack. However, there is no notation in Dr. D.’s completed substance use assessment form indicating that the seizure was due to these conditions, the appellant did not submit any medical evidence to dispute Drs. S.’s and D.’s diagnosis and the appellant denied any change to their anti-anxiety medication following the seizure. I prefer Drs. S.’s and D.’s medically supported assessment over the appellant’s subjective self-assessment.

17I find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

18I find that the Registrar has proven on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

19The Registrar’s representative argues that sudden incapacitation due to seizure due to alcohol withdrawal can and will significantly interfere with a driver’s ability to drive safely and presents a safety risk to other road users. They further argue that in order to consider reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence they require confirmation that the appellant has remained seizure free and abstinent from alcohol for a period of one year. This period may be reduced to six months if the appellant’s healthcare practitioner confirms they have successfully completed an alcohol treatment program and is supportive of their driving privilege.

20Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (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 the Tribunal.

21The Registrar relies on the CCMTA Standards, in particular Chapters 17.6.3 (Alcohol Withdrawal Seizures) and 15.6.3 (Substance Use Disorder) plus internal policies at the Ministry of Transportation (the “Ministry”). Chapter 17.6.3 provides that all drivers are eligible for a licence if: the treating physician has confirmed that the cause of the seizure was alcohol withdrawal (i.e., the driver is not epileptic); they have undergone addiction treatment and have received a favourable report from an addiction counsellor; and the criteria for licence reinstatement are met in accordance with the Substance Use Disorder Standard (see 15.6.3). Chapter 15.6.3 provides that all drivers suffering from Alcohol Use Disorder may be eligible for a licence if they meet the criteria for remission and/or have abstained for twelve months. It also states that earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addiction specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority, and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program. The Registrar’s representative acknowledged that Chapter 15.6.3 does not state a specific time period of abstinence in order to consider earlier re-licensing. However, they indicated that the internal policy at the Ministry is that there be a minimum of six months of abstinence.

22The appellant argues that they do not suffer from a medical condition that significantly affects their ability to drive safely.

23The appellant testified that their previous alcohol consumption was “not a problem at all” and they deny they suffer from alcohol use disorder. However, the appellant acknowledged that they had turned to alcohol to relieve stress from their previous job of 29 years, drinking 5-6 beers most nights.

24The appellant’s testimony regarding their wife’s view of their drinking was inconsistent. When questioned, if their wife were present at the hearing, would their wife say that the appellant had a problem with the use of alcohol, the appellant initially testified “yes” and stated that a few times their wife told them to only have a beer or two. Later in the hearing, the appellant stated that their wife would not indicate that they had problems with alcohol and never told them to cut down on their drinking. In addition, the appellant indicated that none of their immediate family members were willing to be called as a witness nor provide a witness statement, having stated to the appellant that the appellant had to get out of this (i.e., the suspension of their driver’s licence) on their own.

25The appellant stated that they: stopped drinking alcohol following the seizure; have not had another seizure; did not attend an alcohol treatment program because Dr. S. told them that the programs were only available in Toronto or Ottawa; have straightened their life out; have new jobs which are much less stressful, involve evening or night work and they go to sleep when they get home; do not have time for other things when they get home after work, including drinking alcohol or any on-line alcohol treatment program; never thought to ask anyone at Dr. G.’s clinic if there were any local alcohol treatment programs to attend; and did not ask for an updated narrative letter from Dr. G.’s clinic because they see different healthcare professionals on most visits and have previously been told by the healthcare professionals that they would not write such letters.

26The appellant candidly admitted they had a previous, dated ‘driving under the influence’ charge. The appellant denies driving under the influence of alcohol since this time. I note that within the appellant’s ‘Extended Driver Record Search for Criminal Code Convictions’, an entry dated September 25, 2001 shows: Impaired Driving-CCC (Criminal Code of Canada); an offence date of March 24, 2001; and a driver’s licence suspension until September 25, 2002.

27While the CCMTA Standards are well-reasoned and provide assistance, every case must be considered on its own facts.

28Although I am not bound by the CCMTA Standards, I find them to be reasonable.

29Seizures, such as the type of seizure the appellant suffered, cause a sudden impairment of cognitive, motor or sensory functions, or a loss of consciousness. As these seizures cause an episodic impairment of the functions necessary for driving, a driver cannot compensate.

30Given the evidence and submissions, I am persuaded to apply the CCMTA Standards in the circumstances of this case.

31I acknowledge that the appellant testified they have been seizure-free and abstinent from alcohol for approximately eight months. However, in the circumstances of this case, I find that eight months is too early for reinstatement of the appellant’s driver’s licence. The appellant falls short of the criteria set out in Chapter 17.6.3 of the CCMTA Standards. The appellant has not taken part in any alcohol treatment or addiction program, does not have a favourable report from an addiction counsellor or any treating healthcare provider and has not submitted any medical information from a treating healthcare provider since August 28, 2023, nearly four months. Furthermore, the appellant falls short of the criteria set out in Chapter 15.6.3 of the CCMTA for either re-licensing or earlier re-licensing for similar reasons. I acknowledge the appellant’s perceived difficulties in getting updated information from Dr. G.’s clinic. However, the appellant has not submitted any corroborating evidence, including any updated liver function tests or witness statements to support their claim of continued abstinence. It is clear from the appellant’s Notice of Appeal (“…liver function is perfect…”) that they are aware that alcohol consumption can affect liver function/liver enzymes.

32Furthermore, I find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant does not have sufficient insight into their condition of seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. The appellant still denies or cannot accept that, on a balance of probabilities, they suffer from seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. Insight is an important consideration when considering safety to drive.

33In addition, based on the evidence and submissions, I disagree with the appellant that they do not have a problem with alcohol. Dr. D. indicated that the appellant suffers from severe alcohol use disorder, now in remission and the appellant suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal. I find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant does not have sufficient insight into their alcohol use disorder.

34Based on the totality of the above, I accept the respondent’s submission that further time and medical information should be submitted is reasonable keeping in mind public road safety.

35I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

36I find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from the medical condition of seizure due to alcohol withdrawal that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

37For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.