Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15602/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:

Timothy Kovats

Appellant

And

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

ADJUDICATOR:

Peter Savage and Kailey Minnings

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Timothy Kovats, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Sharon Nelson, Representative

HEARD: March 5, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Timothy Kovats (Katty) (the “appellant”) appeals from the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (“Registrar”) 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 Registrar received a report from an emergency physician that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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 medical condition, namely syncope/loss of consciousness (LOC), 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 suffer from the medical condition alleged but 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, 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?

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, we 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 we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.

ANALYSIS

Does the appellant suffer from the medical condition alleged?

10The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/LOC.

11The Registrar’s position is supported by medical reports completed by Dr. Robichaud and Dr. Ganesan.

12In July of 2018, Dr. Robichaud, an emergency physician, submitted an unsolicited medical condition report to the Ministry of Transportation indicating the appellant suffered an unexplained syncope that resulted in a motor vehicle collision (MVC). The appellant signed themselves out of hospital and not all tests were completed. Dr. Robichaud was not certain of the diagnosis, and he submitted the unsolicited medical condition report.

13On June 19, 2023, Dr. Ganesan, a neurologist, examined the appellant and did a number of investigations. He reported the history of syncope/LOC and was able to rule out a neurological cause.

14The appellant acknowledges that they suffers from a “blackout” that caused the MVC. The appellant cannot describe the “blackout” but notes he was under stress at the time and was travelling out west to get away from the stressing factors.

15We find that the Registrar has established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from unexplained syncope/LOC.

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

16We 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.

17The Registrar argues that the medical condition interferes with the appellant’s ability to drive safely in that the appellant’s condition has not been satisfactorily diagnosed and there is the possibility of future syncope/LOC. The Registrar points out that the appellant has not completed the Seizure and Loss of Consciousness questionnaire that was requested by the Registrar.

18The Registrar points out the MVC the appellant was involved in was a serious car wreck and the appellant has testified there have been other accidents since the July 2018 accident that the appellant is not able to clearly explain.

19The Registrar points out that there has been no endorsement from the appellant’s physicians supporting a return of his licence. Further, the Registrar points out the neurologist recommends a functional driving test.

20The Registrar relies on the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers [February 2021] (the “CCMTA Standards”) which states that, in cases where a driver has experienced unexplained syncope, a driver must be greater than one week without another bout of syncope and must meet all other licencing requirements including participation in a functional driving assessment. The appellant has been greater than one week since his last bout of syncope; however, he has not met the requirement for a functional driving assessment.

21Section 14(2)(a) of the Regulation allows the Registrar to consider the CCMTA Standards when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. The Tribunal may take the CCMTA Standards into consideration but is not bound by them.

22The appellant argues that the medical condition alleged does not impact their ability to drive safely.

23The appellant argues he has been and will continue to be a safe driver and he looks after his health, and it has been a long time since he had his blackout. He testifies he takes no medications and lives a healthy lifestyle. He exercises regularly and is intellectually bright taking an interest in science, politics, and climate issues.

24The appellant argues that the person at fault for the accidents was someone known to him as “Lilla Purple Cushion”. He was driving out west to see friends and get away from her influence. She still has an influence on him, but he is now better able to ignore her. Despite questioning by the Registrar and panel members, the appellant could not clarify the circumstances that made him think that this person was at fault, nor could he explain his relationship with her.

25The appellant (and, reportedly, their mother and their sister) sit support the need for a functional driving test; however, the appellant argues that the cost is too great for him to pay himself and it is his feeling that the expense should be borne by the Ministry of Transportation. He also mentioned time constraints as preventing him from completing the test.

26The appellant testified that they called one of the five test centres in his area on two occasions and on neither occasion did e get an answer on the phone. They have not been able to do any further follow up.

27The appellant argues that the Registrar has not given him enough time to complete the functional driving assessment and the Registrar should not have suspended his temporary one-day driver’s licence that would have allowed him to complete the functional driving test.

28Although we have considered the appellant’s arguments, we found the arguments presented by the Registrar more persuasive in convincing us to order the appellant’s licence suspension to continue. The CCMTA Standards add weight to this decision in that the requested functional assessment has not been completed. We found that the appellant had insight into the need for a functional driving assessment and we understood his arguments as to why it was not completed. We are sympathetic and understand the financial difficulties the functional driving test present to the appellant; however, these barriers are out of the control of the Tribunal. With regard to the time allotted to the appellant we found that ample time and information was given for the appellant to communicate with a driving centre and set up an appointment.

29We are satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the appellant’s medical condition is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive safely.

Conclusion

30We find that the Registrar has discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely syncope/LOC, that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

ORDER

31For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, we confirm the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.