Citation: Cooper v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, 2024 ONLAT 15603

Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15603 MED

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

Between:

Graham J. Cooper

Appellant

and

Registrar of Motor Vehicles

Respondent

DECISION

PANEL:

Dr. Peter Savage Rupinder Hans

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant:

Graham (Wanda) Cooper, Appellant

For the Respondent:

Ian Sookram, Representative

HEARD: March 13, 2024

OVERVIEW

1Graham (Wanda) Cooper (the "appellant") appeals the decision of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles (the "Registrar") to suspend her Class G driver's licence for medical reasons, specifically seizure, under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8 (the "Act"). The appellant asks the Tribunal to set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend her driver's licence.

2The appellant self-identifies as female and her personal pronouns are she/her. She prefers to use the first name Wanda, although all official documentation lists her first name as Graham.

3By letter dated January 15, 2024, the Registrar initially suspended the appellant's licence based upon the reported medical conditions of cognitive impairment and seizure. Subsequently, the appellant had a physician complete the Cognitive Disorder form, dated March 1, 2024, and after review of the form, by letter dated March 8, 2024, the Registrar advised that the reported medical condition was seizure.

4At the hearing, the Registrar confirmed that the suspension was based upon a seizure disorder only.

5Having considered all the evidence and for the reasons that follow, we set aside the decision 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 her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.

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

i. Does the appellant suffer from a medical condition, namely seizure disorder?

ii. If the appellant does suffer from seizure, is this likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?

RESULT

8We find the appellant does not suffer from seizure/seizure disorder. We set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.

ANALYSIS

The Law

9The Registrar has the authority under s.47(1)(g) of the Act to suspend or cancel a driver's licence for any sufficient reason.

10Section 14(1)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 enacted under the Act requires 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 his or her ability to drive a motor vehicle of the applicable class safely." It is therefore a sufficient reason to suspend a driver's licence under s.47(1)(g) of the Act if the driver suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his or her ability to drive safely.

11Section 203(1) of the Act requires medical professionals to report prescribed medical conditions to the Registrar, while s. 203(2) gives medical professionals the discretion to report medical conditions that they believe might make it dangerous for a person to drive.

12Section 14(2)(a) of O. Reg. 340/94 allows the Registrar to consider the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators Medical Standards for Drivers ("CCMTA Standards") when determining whether the requirements of s. 14(1) are met. This Tribunal may also consider them; however the CCMTA Standards are not binding on the Registrar or on this Tribunal.

13The Registrar has the burden of establishing on a balance of probabilities that one or more grounds for suspending a driver's licence has been made out.

14Pursuant 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.

Does the appellant suffer from seizure/seizure disorder?

15The evidence does not satisfy us that the appellant suffers from seizure/seizure disorder. We find the Registrar has not met its burden, on a balance of probabilities.

16The Registrar relies upon the unsolicited Medical Condition Report, dated January 12, 2024 (the "MCR"), completed by an emergency room doctor. The emergency room doctor noted that the appellant's medical condition or impairment was seizure, "unknown." The doctor states that: "The patent went to bed in usual state

of health, woke in the morning after unknown event with laceration to right eye, body aches. Suspect first time seizure."

17No further medical records were presented to the Tribunal with regards to a seizure condition.

18The only other medical evidence provided to the Tribunal was the completed Cognitive Disorder form completed by the appellant's new family doctor which includes no expression of concern regarding seizures.

19The Registrar provided a Seizure and Loss of Consciousness form to the appellant for completion by a healthcare practitioner. The appellant made efforts to have it completed but she encountered barriers, including having an electroencephalogram done in a timely manner, and she further felt that it was not necessary as she had not experienced a seizure.

20The appellant testified that she has a disability with peripheral neuropathy, chronic pain and mobility issues. She has a prescription for medical cannabis. She was in pain on the evening of January 12, 2024, and to relieve and manage the pain, she ate some edible cannabis chocolate that a friend had given her. She ate the cannabis chocolate as her pain was becoming unbearable. She testified that she usually smokes cannabis to manage her pain and does not take edibles. She testified that this was her first time eating an edible, and the feeling was intense, and she could barely walk. She testified that she had never felt like this before and was alone in her residence. She slipped on a towel in her bathroom and fell striking her head on the toilet causing a laceration. She did not lose consciousness. She managed to stop the bleeding at home but felt she might need stitches, so she called a taxi and went to the emergency/urgent care of St Joseph's Hospital.

21The appellant testified that she waited several hours at St. Joseph's. She testified that the emergency room doctor spent only about a minute with her, told her she did not need stiches, and sent her home. She testifies that he made no notes in her presence. She further testified that the emergency was full of people and was quite chaotic. She was in a room that had many other patients. The appellant's physical presentation was female, and the appellant postulates that the doctor may have made a mistake and written information on the wrong chart.

22The appellant does not believe she had a seizure on January 12, 2024, or has a seizure disorder condition. She testified that she has no family history of seizures and has never had a seizure. She testified that she slipped and fell due to the

intoxicating effect of the cannabis that she had ingested. She ingested a new dose of cannabis that she was not used to, and it caused her to become highly intoxicated.

23The appellant testified that, contrary to the comments in the MCR, she did not wake up in the morning after an unknown event with a laceration to her right eye. She testified that she ingested cannabis and while feeling the intoxicating effects, she slipped and fell, and within an hour and a half she was at St. Joseph's Hospital seeking medical care.

24In light of the appellant's testimony and a review of the entirety of the medical evidence presented, we are not persuaded that the appellant has a medical condition, namely seizure/seizure disorder. We find the MCR to be vague and unpersuasive with regards to a seizure/seizure disorder medical condition. In the MCR, the emergency room doctor stated that they merely suspect a first time seizure. This appears to be a possibility only, with no real diagnosis.

25We note that there was no other medical evidence presented. There was also no evidence presented that demonstrated that follow up testing was recommended, a follow up appointment arranged, or medication prescribed.

26In addition, we are persuaded by the testimony of the appellant that she did not suffer a seizure, did not lose consciousness, but instead experienced the intoxicating effects of eating a cannabis product which she had not done before. We note that it is the Registrar's burden to present evidence of a seizure disorder, and we find that it has not met its burden.

27Although it would have been of assistance to have a completed Seizure and Loss of Consciousness form completed, we base our decision upon the evidence presented.

28Given the evidence before us, we find on a balance of probabilities that the appellant does not suffer from seizure/seizure disorder.

ORDER

29For the reasons set out above, pursuant to section 50(2) of the Act, we find the appellant does not suffer from seizure. We set aside the Registrar's decision to suspend the appellant's driver's licence.