Licence Appeal Tribunal
Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15554/MED
In a 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:
Jonathan Todish
Appellant
and
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION & ORDER
ADJUDICATORS: Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Member Raymond C. Ramdayal, Member
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Jonathan Todish For the Respondent: Stephen Grootenboer, Representative
Heard: February 8, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Jonathan Todish (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the “respondent”) to suspend their Class G licence under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the “Act”) after the respondent received a report from a treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their ability to drive safely.
2The respondent 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 which is likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle 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 respondent takes the position that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely a substance use disorder, 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 deny that they suffer from the medical condition alleged 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.
ISSUE
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, we will address the following questions:
i. Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged?
ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
The respondent bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of these questions is ‘yes.’
RESULT
8Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, we find that the respondent 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 we confirm the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
ANALYSIS
9By letter dated November 30, 2023, the respondent advised the appellant that his licence was being suspended for having a substance use disorder. They reached this decision after receiving an unsolicited medical condition report (“MCR”) dated November 25, 2023. On the day prior, the appellant was admitted to hospital after he relapsed by using drugs which, unknown to him, were laced with fentanyl causing a serious adverse effect requiring immediate medical attention.
10The appellant had just completed a 30-day treatment program with Simcoe Addiction and Mental Health (SAMH) which ran from September 25 to October 24, 2023. Following his release from SAMH, the appellant also retained a personal therapist and attended Cocaine Anonymous meetings.
11The evidence in front of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) indicates that the appellant has suffered, and continues to suffer, from addiction issues related to alcohol and cocaine. This was confirmed by his healthcare practitioner who completed a Substance Use Form at the request of the respondent. It confirms a medical condition of substance use disorder for alcohol (mild) and cocaine (moderate). The respondent now requires confirmation from the appellant’s healthcare practitioner that he has remained abstinent from alcohol and/or drugs for a period of one year to consider reinstating his driver’s licence. This period may be reduced to six months if his healthcare provider confirms successful completion of an alcohol and/or drug treatment program and is supportive of his driving privilege.
Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged?
12We find that the appellant does suffer from the medical condition alleged. This was confirmed twice by two separate healthcare practitioners. The first one being Dr. C. Thompson, the attending doctor at the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre. The second was Dr. M. Tomizza, who completed the Substance Use Assessment form.
13The appellant also admitted to having a history of substance use although at times appeared to minimize his addiction. His parents appeared as witnesses on his behalf. At present, the appellant claims to have remained abstinent from drugs and alcohol for 3 months. He claims to have not used alcohol since November 26, 2023, and not used cocaine since November 24, 2023.
14When questioned about the events leading up to his relapse, the appellant provided vague responses which appeared to lack insight into his triggers and ability to self-regulate. They also did not instill confidence in the Tribunal that it will not happen again and/or that sufficient time has gone by to demonstrate his positive rehabilitation. For this reason, he continues to suffer from the alleged medical condition.
15The appellant relied on the fact that his driving record shows no offences for driving while under the influence. He states that he has never compromised his strong conviction that no one should ever drive while impaired. He believes this should afford him some consideration for the reinstatement of his licence.
16The appellant was unable to provide specific details about his relapse prevention plan to protect against a future relapse. This is an important component in addressing his medical condition and subsequent ability to drive a motor vehicle safely. He explained he may be bringing more information forward from his healthcare provider in the future. Since the information was not available at the hearing, the respondent reminded the appellant that he can submit further information at any time in the future for consideration into reinstating his driver’s licence.
17It is the respondent’s position that based on the most recent medical information received, the appellant suffers from the medical condition alleged and this will interfere with his ability to operate a vehicle safely. Their request for a longer period of sobriety than 3 months and/or additional information from the appellant’s healthcare practitioner citing their support of the appellant’s driving privilege remains outstanding. This information is vital in assessing the appellant’s readiness to drive. Moreover, the information allows their medical review team to review current and applicable medical information to make a determination on whether the appellant’s driver’s licence should be reinstated.
18Based on the evidence before us, there is no medical information to confirm that the appellant has satisfied any of the criteria of the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators medical standards for drivers (“CCMTA Standards”) with respect to licence reinstatement. In addition, there is evidence which supports a history of substance abuse and, most recently, no effect to curb this behaviour despite professional intervention and treatment. We accept the diagnosis reached by both medical practitioners, i.e. substance use disorder. As a result, on a balance of probabilities, we find that the respondent has established that the appellant suffers from the medical condition alleged.
Is the appellant’s medical condition likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
19We find that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
20We received evidence confirming that the appellant was hospitalized after relapsing and consuming drugs and alcohol approximately 30 days after completion of an intense treatment program. This is concerning to the panel as it indicates a deeper substance abuse issue that has been unsuccessfully treated. As such, the appellant’s current addiction is unresolved and outstanding.
21To date, the appellant has not provided further information supporting his readiness to drive and for his driver’s licence to be reinstated since his hospitalization. The appellant spoke about his substance use and how it has affected his family his family in the past. He is commended for attempting to take steps to address his substance abuse. He also has the support of his parents who are acting in his best interest to provide him with the support he needs going forward.
22However, the panel is not convinced that the appellant has had a substantial period of sobriety to demonstrate his readiness for his licence to be reinstated and must take into consideration the public’s interest and safety.
23It is the respondent’s position that the appellant’s medical condition is acute and will interfere with his ability to drive a car safely. His history of substance abuse is concerning especially since relapsing so quickly after treatment. They are willing to accept and consider additional information from the appellant if it becomes available.
24Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Minister of Transportation (“Minister”) to consider the CCMTA Standards when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. Similarly, the Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration, although they are not binding. In this matter, the respondent is relying on the CCMTA standard relating to substance use disorder. Chapter 15.6.3 of the standard describes drivers who are under the influence of alcohol and illicit drugs as eligible for a licence if they meet certain criteria:
- Meets the criteria for remission and/or has abstained from the substance for 12 months
- Earlier re-licensing may be considered upon favourable recommendation from an addictions specialist and/or treating physician recognized by the licensing authority and the successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program
- The functional abilities necessary for driving are not impaired
- Where required, a road test or other functional assessment shows that the functional abilities for driving are not impaired.
25We agree that it is reasonable and prudent to apply the CCMTA Standards to this case in view of the information regarding the appellant’s addiction including his relapse. Based on the evidence we received, the appellant does not meet the CCMTA Standards for re-licensing as his substance use disorder that has not been adequately resolved. There is no evidence from any health care provider supporting his ability to drive safely.
26For these reasons, we agree with the respondent’s position that the appellant’s condition is likely to interfere with his ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
Conclusion
27We find that the respondent has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder, and that it is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
ORDER
28For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the respondent’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
LICENCE APPEAL TRIBUNAL
________________________________
Dr. Dimitri Louvish, M.D., Adjudicator
________________________________
Raymond C. Ramdayal, Adjudicator
Released: March 5, 2024