Licence Appeal Tribunal File Number: 15701/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:
Kevin Griffin
Appellant
And
Registrar of Motor Vehicles
Respondent
DECISION
ADJUDICATOR: Peter Savage M.D.
APPEARANCES:
For the Appellant: Kevin Griffin, appellant
For the Respondent: Ian Sookram, Representative
HEARD: April 3, 2024
OVERVIEW
1Kevin Griffin (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 a treating health care provider that the appellant suffers from a medical condition that may affect their ability to drive 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 substance use disorder (cannabis), 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 substance 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.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
6The appellant testified they were on the autism spectrum and advised the Tribunal that they sometimes spoke more loudly than normal and that they often spoke in metaphors and rhyme. The appellant provided more information about themselves, which prompted me to inquire if they would like an accommodation under the Human Rights Code. The appellant indicated they did not require an accommodation; rather, they wanted the Tribunal to understand their manner of speech and not be distressed if their tone became loud. The appellant indicated they wished to proceed with the hearing.
ISSUES
7The 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.
8To resolve that issue, I will address the following questions:
i. Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder (cannabis)?
ii. If so, is this likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely?
9The Registrar bears the burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the answer to each of the above questions is “yes.”
RESULT
10Having considered all the evidence and submissions and for the reasons that follow, I find that the Registrar has not 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 set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
ANALYSIS
Does the appellant suffer from substance use disorder?
11The evidence presented at the hearing does not establish that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder (cannabis).
12The Registrar’s position is supported by medical reports by Dr. Aziz, a family doctor who conducted an intake interview with the appellant.
13Dr. Aziz submitted an unsolicited medical report based on a phone consultation with the appellant on May 27, 2024. Dr. Aziz did not make a diagnosis of a medical condition or impairment on this report but she did state: “patient has reported a heavy daily use of cannabis and intent to continue to drive after using this substance”.
14The appellant denies that they suffer from substance use disorder (cannabis).
15The appellant directs the Tribunal’s attention to their driving record, pointing out that over their 18 years of driving they have had only three minor speeding tickets and that a person with substance use disorder would not have such a good driving record.
16The appellant testified they did not have a family doctor and arranged to see Dr. Aziz for an intake interview. The appellant was concerned about choking up food. Dr. Aziz was their parents’ physician and had agreed to do this intake interview. The appellant testified that once they revealed to Dr. Aziz that they were a “two spirited, Métis, new spirited, homosexual witch,” the interview took on a different tone. The appellant testified that Dr. Aziz was “more formal and stiffer,” and believed that Dr. Aziz may have had an unconscious bias against him after this information was shared.
17The appellant did mention that they used plants in their work as a witch but denies they ever spoke about cannabis specifically. The appellant suspects the use of the word “plants” made Dr. Aziz suspect cannabis but in fact the plants they used were herbs like rosemary and thyme.
18The appellant points out Dr. Aziz did not fill out section 3 of the medical condition report and therefore did not make a diagnosis of substance use disorder.
19The appellant testified they were not advised to refrain from driving and were surprised when their licence was suspended.
20The appellant testified they are not on any medications and have never used cannabis or any illicit drug or alcohol. There is conflicting evidence in this case. The medical condition report itself supports the possibility of substance use disorder. On the other hand, the circumstances of a virtual intake consult with a new medical doctor create the possibility of misunderstanding. The fact that a diagnosis of substance use disorder was not made on the medical condition report reduces the value of Dr. Aziz’s report. I found the appellant’s testimony was given in a very straightforward and open manner, and very compelling. When I consider the appellant’s self-identified issues of autism and self-identification as a “two spirited, Métis, new spirited, homosexual witch” with the lack of an actual medical diagnosis on Dr. Aziz’s report, I find the Registrar’s evidence to fall well short of meeting its burden of proving that the appellant has a medical condition of a substance use disorder (cannabis). While I accept the appellant’s observation that the intake interview with Dr. Aziz took a different atmosphere at some point, I do not decide whether Dr. Aziz had or may have had an unconscious bias towards the appellant. My evaluation of the Registrar’s case is solely on the evidence before me. After considering both parties’ evidence and positions, I am not satisfied with the Registrar’s evidence and prefer that of the appellant.
21I find that the Registrar has not established on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from substance use disorder (cannabis). As the Registrar has failed to show the appellant suffers from a medical condition, I do not need to decide the second issue. The appeal is successful.
Conclusion
22I find that the Registrar has not discharged the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the appellant suffers from a medical condition, namely substance use disorder (cannabis), that is likely to significantly interfere with their ability to drive a motor vehicle safely.
ORDER
23For the reasons set out above, pursuant to subsection 50(2) of the Act, I set aside the Registrar’s decision to suspend the appellant’s driver’s licence.
Released: April 11, 2024
Peter Savage M.D.